McKenzie v. State

<p>1. An objection to the admission of evidence, upon the ground merely that it is “ inadmissible,” is equivalent to assigning no reason at all for its exclusion.</p> <p>2. A ground of a motion for a new trial excepting to the exclusion of testimony but not showing why it was excluded and not stating why its exclusion was error is not in proper form for consideration.</p> <p>3. Slight inaccuracies in the charge of the court, not likely to mislead the jury and cause them to render a verdict contrary to the facts and the general tenor of the charge, which fully and correctly stated the issues and in such a way as not to be prejudicial to the excepting party, are not cause for a new trial.</p> <p>4. The requests to charge, so far as legal and pertinent, were covered by the charge given.</p> <p>5. The doctrine of reasonable fears was fully and clearly given in charge.</p> <p>6. The exception to the charge of the court as a whole, as being disconnected and confusing, is too general and indefinite to present any question for determination by this court. The charge, taken as a whole, lays down the law correctly and is clear enough to be understood by a jury of ordinary capacity.</p> <p>7. The alleged newly discovered evidence is cumulative, and, moreover, was met by a counter-showing, and this court can not say that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on account of such evidence.</p>