115 So. 914 | La. | 1928
The appellant was convicted of murder without capital punishment. His appeal presents a number of bills of exception. *720
Of course, this discussion, as part of the res gestæ and as showing the circumstances under which the killing occurred, was highly important to the accused, even if it served only to show that the killing occurred in the heat of passion.
The ruling was erroneous. "A witness need not have heard the entire conversation, but may testify to the part he has heard." State v. Freddy,
All such bills as these are a sheer waste of time, besides imposing an impossible task upon this court. The ruling of a trial judge on matters relating to the relevancy and competence of evidence will not be disturbed unless the appellant show clearly and succinctly not only that such rulings were manifestly erroneous, but also that they resulted in manifest prejudice to the cause of the accused. When such conditions are shown, this court will promptly overrule the trial judge; otherwise not so. Cf. par. III, supra.
For "a criminal prosecution is more than a [mere] game in which the government [or state] may be checkmated and the game lost merely because its officers have not played [strictly] according to rule." McGuire v. United States,
In other words, an accused is entitled at the hands of this court, and of every court, to a full measure of protection for all his substantial rights; but he is not entitled to anything more, and especially he is not entitled to complain of every trivial error committed by the trial judge or by the prosecuting attorney, when the record as a whole shows that he has had the benefit of a full and fair trial.