Acker v. State

Appellant was convicted of embezzlement. A similar charge had been filed against an accomplice who in this action testified as a witness for the state. One of the errors asserted as grounds for new trial and here argued as cause for reversal is the refusal of the trial court to permit the accomplice to testify on cross-examination upon any subject regarding the case pending against him.

Specifically the appellant’s counsel asked about the case having been set for trial. To which inquiry the court stated: “Never mind that, don’t answer that question.” “Let this man’s case alone.” “Don’t ask him…