Day v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
Day v. State, 91 Miss. 239 (Miss. 1907)
44 So. 813
Calhoon
Day v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
We do not notice the claim of error in sustaining objections to testimony offered, because not mentioned in the motion for a new trial.
We cannot reverse because of the improper language of the district attorney in his argument, since the judge rebuked it and told the jury not to consider it, which action, in this case, we think prevented harm.
The affidavit in support of the motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is too defective to require notice. Cooper v. State, 53 Miss., 393. Besides, it shows
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Wren Day v. State of Mississippi
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Criminal Law and Procedure. Evidence. Admission. Rejection. Rulings of trial court. Motion for new trial. Supreme court practice. An assignment of error predicated of a ruling admitting or excluding testimony will not he sustained by the supreme court, unless appellant in his motion for a new trial brought the attention of the trial court definitely to the ruling of which complaint is made. 2. Same. Argument. Improper remarles. Harmless error. A conviction of crime will not be reversed because of improper remarks by a prosecuting attorney in the course of his argument to the jury, where the trial judge at once rebuked the orator and directed the jury not to consider the remarks, if it be reasonably certain that no harm was done. 3. Same. New trial. Newly discovered evidence. Diligence. Counsel’s Knowledge. A new trial for newly discovered evidence will be denied where the application therefor failed to show defendant’s diligence, or that his counsel was unadvised of the evidence during the trial.