State v. Bowles

• Decision Date: 13 May 1930
• Docket Number: 6571.
• Citation: 153 S.E. 308,109 W.Va. 174
• Parties: STATE v. BOWLES.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

153 S.E. 308

109 W.Va. 174

STATE v. BOWLES.

No. 6571.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

May 13, 1930

Submitted May 7, 1930.

Syllabus by the Court.

Propriety of cross-examination of accused's witnesses, raised initially in reviewing court, will not be considered.

The propriety of certain questions asked a witness, which is raised initially in the appellate court, will not be considered.

Duplication of instruction is not required or desirable.

Duplication of instruction is not requisite or desirable.

Rejection of instruction on higher degree of offense will not be reviewed, where conviction was for lower degree.

Conviction for a lower degree of an offense relieves the court from considering the rejection of an instruction on a higher degree.

Statute authorizing submission of interrogatories to jury does not apply to criminal cases (Code, c. 131, § 5).

Code, c. 131, § 5, authorizing the submission of interrogatories to the jury, does not apply to trials in criminal cases.

Error to Circuit Court, McDowell County.

Frank Bowles was convicted of unlawful wounding, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Howard B. Lee, Atty. Gen., and R. A. Blessing, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Harman & Howard, of Welch, for plaintiff in error.

HATCHER J.

The defendant, aged 17, was convicted and sentenced for unlawful wounding. The trouble arose over a girl whom he had taken to church. She started home with another escort. The evidence in favor of the state shows that the defendant attacked the supplanter and cut him severely with a knife. The defendant who received some wounds himself, claims that he acted only in self-defense. The details of the conflicting evidence would add nothing to this opinion. Suffice it to say that there is ample evidence to support the verdict, and we cannot say that the finding of the jury is plainly wrong.

The defendant complains because the cross-examinations of his witnesses Riley Roberts and Herbert Payne were not restricted to matters contained in their examinations in chief. No objection was made or exception taken to the cross-examination of Roberts. The impropriety of the interrogation cannot be initially raised in this court. State v. Driver, 88 W.Va. 479, 107 S.E. 189, 15 A L. R. 917. That of Payne was either proper or on matters not controverted.

The defendant also complains because the state introduced as a witness his counsel, J. N. Harman, Jr., and elicited who had employed him. No objection was made either to the introduction of this witness or to the questions asked him. At the close of his examination, the court struck out his evidence. He was employed by the father of the defendant. The evidence thus elicited was improper. But we see no possible prejudice to the defendant because the jury learned that his father was...