Mooreman v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23110 |
| Citation | 131 Miss. 662,95 So. 638 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MOOREMAN v. STATE |
March 1923
CRIMINAL LAW. Exclusion of question not reviewed, unless expected answer shown.
The supreme court on appeal cannot review the exclusion by the court below of the testimony of a witness, where, while the record discloses the question sought to be propounded to the witness, it does not disclose what his answers thereto would have been, so that the courts may determine whether appellant was prejudicied by the exclusion thereof.
Appeal from the circuit court of Pontotoc county, HON. C. P. LONG Judge.
Dan Mooreman was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
George T. Mitchell, for appellant.
J. H. Sumrall, assistant attorney-general, for the state.
This is an appeal from a conviction of manslaughter on conflicting testimony. In the cross-examination of the state witnesses, Kirk Austin and Dolphus Clower, appear the following questions and answers:
The appellant introduced Bagwell as a witness, and in the report of his testimony appears the following:
Counsel for the appellant then offered to introduce Thompson and Staton to prove the same thing by them. On objection by the state they were not permitted to testify. To which ruling of the court an exception was reserved.
Assuming for the sake of the argument that it was competent for the appellant to show that the state witnesses were drunk at the time of the homicide, as to which we express no opinion, it does not appear from the record that the witnesses offered by him would have so testified; consequently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
... ... objectionable. In the second place, the record does not show ... what the witness answer would have been, and, therefore, this ... court has nothing to review ... Reece ... v. State, 154 Miss. 862, 123 So. 892; Mooreman v ... State, 131 Miss. 662, 95 So. 638; Tucker v ... State, 103 Miss. 117, 60 So. 65; Lebarron v ... State, 107 Miss. 663, 65 So. 648; Temple v. State, 165 ... Miss. 798, 145 So. 749 ... It is ... not error for the trial court to refuse a cautionary ... instruction ... ...
-
Brown v. State
... ... objectionable. In the second place, the record does not show ... what the witness' answer would have been, and, therefore, ... this court has nothing to review ... Reece ... v. State, 154 Miss. 862, 123 So. 892; Mooreman v. State, 131 ... Miss. 662, 95 So. 638; Tucker v. State, 103 Miss. 117, 60 So ... 65; Lebarron v. State, 107 Miss. 663, 65 So. 648; Temple v ... State, 165 Miss. 798, 145 So. 749 ... It is ... not error for the trial court to refuse a cautionary ... instruction ... ...
-
Walters v. Stonewall Cotton Mills
... ... Where ... persons, natural or artificial, with the consent of the ... state, employ police officers to represent them in protecting ... and preserving [136 Miss. 362] their property and maintaining ... order on their ... See, ... also, Tucker v. State, 60 So. 65, 103 Miss. 117; ... N. O. & N.E. R. R. v. Scarlett, 76 So. 265; Mooreman ... v. State, 95 So. 638 ... Jno. L ... Buckley, also for appellee ... It is ... elementary law that agency cannot be ... ...
-
Brice v. State
... ... defendant and the defendant has failed to make a record of ... what he seeks to prove, there is nothing for this court to ... pass on and the exclusion of such testimony cannot be made ... the basis of error in this court ... Temple ... v. State, 145 So. 749; Mooreman v. State, 131 Miss ... 662, 95 So. 638; Reece v. State, 154 Miss. 862, 123 So. 892 ... Testimony ... with reference to uncommunicated threats is not admissible ... until a conflict arises in the testimony as to who the ... aggressor was, or, in other words, until there has been a ... ...