Peebles v. State

55 Miss. 434
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1877·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Chalmers, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question presented is as to the constitutionality of section 2799 of the Code, which permits certain specified amendments in indictments. The question was fully considered in the case of Eliza Miller v. The State, 53 Miss. 403, and decided in favor of the constitutionality of the statute.

In this case there was an affidavit submitted, on the motion for new trial, to the effect that defendant had been surprised by the amendment, and thereby prejudiced in making his defense.

The circuit judge overruled this motion, stating in his order that he did so because no continuance had been asked, nor any intimation given that the defendant was in any manner hindered in his defense by the amendment.

We think this action was correct. A defendant cannot proceed with a trial without objection, and, after conviction, claim that he has been damnified by an action to which he did not object.

Judgment affirmed. ■

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

Peebles v. State, 55 Miss. 434 (Mich. 1877).

55 Miss. 434 (Peebles v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jamison v. State
73 So. 3d 567 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2011)
Rhymes v. State
638 So. 2d 1270 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1994)
Quick v. State
569 So. 2d 1197 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1990)
Nathan v. State
552 So. 2d 99 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1989)
Ellis v. State
469 So. 2d 1256 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1985)
Wilson v. State
37 So. 2d 19 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1948)
Teague v. State
1938 OK CR 66 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1938)
State v. Mullen
131 N.W. 679 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1911)
Welty v. Ward
73 N.E. 889 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1905)
Knight v. State
64 Miss. 802 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1887)