1. Criminal law <©=>1091 (8)— Bill of exceptions to counsel’s argument should specify the objection.

A bill of exceptions must make reasonably apparent the error complained of, and if the objection be to counsel’s argument, the bill should affirmatively show that it is not in answer to something said by counsel for the accused, or was not based on some evidence, and that it was the statement of some matter hurtful to the accused, and not properly before the jury, or for some reason inflammatory or abusive and calculated to injure accused.

2. Criminal law «§=> 1092(5) — Bill of exceptions must be tiled during trial term.

A bill of exceptions on the ground that one juror made reference to defendant’s failure to testify must be filed during the trial term to be considered on review.

3. Criminal law <©=>1091 (10)— Statement of grounds of objection is not tantamount to a showing that such grounds are in fact proved.’

The statement of grounds of objection by appellant is not tantamount to a showing that such grounds are in fact proved, and the facts must appear in the bill of exceptions, which show the error complained of, it not being enough for the defendant to say that he objects because a statement was made out of his I l presence, at a time when the party making the same was across the street, and that appellant did not hear it; this being merely a statement of his objections.

4. Homicide <§=>190(9) — 'Testimony that defendant was a man of ordinary hearing and could have heard threats of deceased held properly refused.

In a prosecution for murder, it was not error to refuse to allow witness to testify that defendant was a man of ordinary hearing, where deceased’s threats, directed toward defendant, were proven to have been made within five feet of defendant, some half hour before shooting, and in the absence of contrary proof it is a legitimate assumption that threats were in defendant’s hearing.

5. Criminal law <©=>1170½(2) — Witnesses <©=> 345(1) — State’s asking defendant’s witness,who admitted his indictment and acquittal of murder, what his defense was, held improper, but without injury to defendant.

In a prosecution for murder, where defendant’s witness admitted he had been indicted for and acquitted of murder, and the state’s counsel asked the ground of his defense, to which he replied “Self-defense,” held not a material or pertinent question, but without injury to defendant; the witness’ credibility only being involved.

In a prosecution for murder, where the evidence covers 37 pages of typewritten matter, in the absence of a contrary showing, it would appear that the evidence could have been prepared in a few hours and the absence of bill of exceptions showing the evidence is not thereby justified.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress