Anderson v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Anderson v. State

33 So. 2d 790, 203 Miss. 850, 1948 Miss. LEXIS 328

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1948

DocketNo. 36654.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 33 So. 2d 790 (Anderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. State, 33 So. 2d 790, 203 Miss. 850, 1948 Miss. LEXIS 328 (Mich. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

*852 Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The verdict in this case is supported by the direct, positive and unequivocal testimony of the prosecuting witness, and even if there were nothing to corroborate him, a peremptory charge would be improper.

: -The argument that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence might be serious had appellants ■made a motion for a new trial assigning that as a ground, ;bqt they wholly omitted to do so. The rule announced *853 in Justice v. State, 170 Miss. 96, 154 So. 265, fourteen years ago, that we conld not review a case on that ground in the absence of a motion for a new trial, has never been departed from, except when waived by the State by not raising the point on the appeal. For instance, in Owen v. State, 197 Miss. 561, 19 So. (2d) 822, the State did not mention the omission on the original submission but attempted to do so on a suggestion of error, and we held that we were not obliged on our own motion to raise the point on the original submission, and that the State could not for the first time do so on a suggestion of error. But, in the present case, the Attorney General has at once raised the point, and insisted upon it, wherefore the rule laid down in Justice v. State, must be followed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*852 Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The verdict in this case is supported by the direct, positive and unequivocal testimony of the prosecuting witness, and even if there were nothing to corroborate him, a peremptory charge would be improper.

: -The argument that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence might be serious had appellants ■made a motion for a new trial assigning that as a ground, ;bqt they wholly omitted to do so. The rule announced *853 in Justice v. State, 170 Miss. 96, 154 So. 265, fourteen years ago, that we conld not review a case on that ground in the absence of a motion for a new trial, has never been departed from, except when waived by the State by not raising the point on the appeal. For instance, in Owen v. State, 197 Miss. 561, 19 So. (2d) 822, the State did not mention the omission on the original submission but attempted to do so on a suggestion of error, and we held that we were not obliged on our own motion to raise the point on the original submission, and that the State could not for the first time do so on a suggestion of error. But, in the present case, the Attorney General has at once raised the point, and insisted upon it, wherefore the rule laid down in Justice v. State, must be followed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 So. 2d 790, 203 Miss. 850, 1948 Miss. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-miss-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack