Opinion
11-22-1932
STATE v. PRYOR et al.
H. Albert Young, of Wilmington, for defendant Pryor. Louis L. Redding, of Wilmington, for defendant Smith.
Prosecution by the State against James Pryor and another for illegal possession of spirituous liquor.
Decision in accordance with opinion.
HARRINGTON, J., sitting.
David J. Reinhardt, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
H. Albert Young, of Wilmington, for defendant Pryor.
Louis L. Redding, of Wilmington, for defendant Smith.
Court of General Sessions for New Castle County, Indictment for Illegal Possession of Spirituous Liquor, No. 15, November Term, 1932.
The defendant, Pryor, was examined on his own behalf by his counsel and testified that he was innocent, but that Smith was guilty of the offense charged. After he had been cross-examined by the Deputy Attorney-General, counsel for Smith, the other defendant, also asked leave to cross-examine him because he had given testimony adverse to the interest of that defendant. Counsel for Pryor objected on the ground that he was a defendant in the case and not a State's witness.
In support of his right to cross-examine Pryor, counsel for Smith cited 1 Chamberlayne on Evidence, § 378; People v. Billis, 58 Misc. 150, 110 N. Y. S. 387.
HARRINGTON, Judge., in overruling the objection, said:
Pryor, though a joint defendant, gave testimony tending to show that Smith was the sole guilty party. Counsel for Smith, therefore, has the right to cross-examine Pryor like he would any other adverse witness in the case.