prejudicial error in Puerto Rico

1968People v. Lewis, 9 Cal. Rptr. 263 (Cal. 1961). 2 In view of the foregoing, we conclude that it was a prejudicial error to deny the instruction requested on assault and battery.

1968People v. Lewis, 9 Cal. Rptr. 263 (Cal. 1961). 2 In view of the foregoing, we conclude that it was a prejudicial error to deny the instruction requested on assault and battery.

1965People v. Lazzara, 281 P.2d 4, 5 (1955); Sorrentino v. United States, 163 F.2d 627 , 629 in fine (1947); People v. McShann, 330 P.2d 33, 36 (1958).

1961Cf. State v. Butler, 143 A.2d 530, 549-551 (N.J. 1958); People v. Coefield, 236 P.2d 570 (Cal.); People v. Ballentine, 246 P.2d 35 (Cal.); People v. Morlock, 292 P.2d 897 (Cal.).

1961Cf. State v. Butler, 143 A.2d 530, 549-551 (N.J. 1958); People v. Coefield, 236 P.2d 570 (Cal.); People v. Ballentine, 246 P.2d 35 (Cal.); People v. Morlock, 292 P.2d 897 (Cal.).

1961Cf. State v. Butler, 143 A.2d 530, 549-551 (N.J. 1958); People v. Coefield, 236 P.2d 570 (Cal.); People v. Ballentine, 246 P.2d 35 (Cal.); People v. Morlock, 292 P.2d 897 (Cal.).

1954In the case of Gore v. State, 134 S. E. 2d 36 , it is held that omission to charge the jury on the law of confessions, is not a prejudicial error if there is other sufficient evidence to warrant conviction. .

1954In the case of Rohlfs v. State, 231 N. W. 266 , it was held that the failure to charge the jury that an admission must be made with some degree of deliberation or voluntariness was not prejudicial, where evidence clearly showed that such admission was clearly deliberate.

1936He cites the case of Johnston v. Commonwealth, 186 S.W. 655 , where the following doctrine was laid down: “In a prosecution for murder, an instruction that the jury may return a verdict of murder or manslaughter is error, where there is no evidence of manslaughter.

1910H. & P. Assn. v. Hill, 113 Cal., 382 ; Ward v. Ringo, 2 Tex., 420 ; Dangel v. Levy, 1 Idaho, 737 .) In this connection it appears to us proper to reproduce what we have already said on the 19th instant, in deciding the case of Martin Belber v. Enrique Calvo: “In eases tried by the court, the exclusion of evidence may often he an error; but it seldom happens that the admission of impertinent evidence constitutes a prejudicial error, because the court has, up to the last moment, the power to disregard impertinent testimony and to render judgment only on the strength of the material facts that ha

1910H. & P. Assn. v. Hill, 113 Cal., 382 ; Ward v. Ringo, 2 Tex., 420 ; Dangel v. Levy, 1 Idaho, 737 .) In this connection it appears to us proper to reproduce what we have already said on the 19th instant, in deciding the case of Martin Belber v. Enrique Calvo: “In eases tried by the court, the exclusion of evidence may often he an error; but it seldom happens that the admission of impertinent evidence constitutes a prejudicial error, because the court has, up to the last moment, the power to disregard impertinent testimony and to render judgment only on the strength of the material facts that ha