State v. Moose, No. 6832.
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Writing for the Court | HATCHER |
| Citation | 158 S.E. 715 |
| Parties | STATE v. MOOSE. |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 6832. |
158 S.E. 715
STATE
v.
MOOSE.
No. 6832.
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
May 19, 1931.
An attorney for the state may prosecute vigorously, as long as he deals fairly with the accused; but he should not become a partisan, intent only on conviction. And it is a flagrant abuse of his position to refer in his argument to the jury to material facts outside the record or not fairly de-ducible therefrom.
Error to Circuit Court, Raleigh County.
Sam Moose was convicted of robbery, and he brings error.
Reversed, and new trial awarded.
C. R. Harless, of Beckley, and Kee & Lubliner, of Bluefield, for plaintiff in error.
Howard B. Lee, Atty. Gen., and W. Elliott Neffien, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
HATCHER, J.
Defendant seeks reversal of a conviction and sentence for robbery.
On the night of June 16, 1928, Leo Domihick, of Glen White, W. Va., who operated a taxi there, was hired by two men, unknown to him, for a trip to Beckley. A short distance from Glen White, Dominick was beaten and his car taken by the men. Later that night, it was found wrecked, not far from where it was stolen. Dominick identified defendant as one of the men. Another state witness testified that he saw defendant talking with Dominick at the time two men hired the taxi.
Defendant resides at Sophia, W. Va., and denied talking and riding with Dominick that night. He introduced several witnesses whose testimony tended to prove an alibi for him, and other witnesses who described two unknown men, who appeared upon the scene a day or so before the robbery, and disappeared soon after the news of the robbery spread.
Defendant relies chiefly for reversal on the conduct and remarks of an attorney who assisted in the prosecution, and who, in closing the case before the jury, according to a special bill of exceptions, "made a 'whirlwind' argument, in very loud and fast style and in an unusual manner for an attorney at law, which made it extremely difficult for the reporter as well as counsel representing the defendant to get and receive his argument and often times during his argument when counsel representing the defendant would object, the said attorney would not hesitate in his argument, but would proceed in an unusual manner and unbecoming of an attorney at law; and his manner and demeanor while arguing to the
[158 S.E. 716]jury, was such as to indicate that he was unfair and wholly bent upon convicting the defendant and having no regard for what the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hamric, No. 12525
...trial. 4 M.J., Commonwealth's and State's Attorney, § 4; State v. Hively, 103 W.Va. 237, 136 S.E. 862; State v. Moose, 110 W.Va. 476, 158 S.E. 715. If a prosecting attorney or special prosecuting attorney intentionally withholds information as to material evidence which would affect the gui......
-
State v. Lewis, 10146
...argument, of fact outside the evidence or not fairly inferable from the evidence, and to do so is error. State v. Moose, 110 W.Va. 476, 158 S.E. 715. Personal abuse by a prosecuting attorney of the defendant or witnesses during the examination of witnesses or in the argument before the jury......
-
State v. Burdette, No. 10274
...upon State v. McLane, 126 W.Va. 219, 27 S.E.2d 604; State v. Hively, 103 W.Va. 237, 136 S.E. 862; and State v. Moose, 110 W.Va. 476, 158 S.E. 715. These cases, we think, have no application The defendant Burdette further complains that the sentence imposed by the trial court is 'a violation......
-
State v. Grubbs, 16988
...role with which he is cloaked under the law." We recognized in part of the single Syllabus of State v. Moose, 110 W.Va. 476, 158 S.E. 715 (1931), that "[i]t is a flagrant abuse of [the prosecutor's] position to refer, Page 831 in his argument to the jury, to material facts outside the recor......
-
State v. Hamric, No. 12525
...trial. 4 M.J., Commonwealth's and State's Attorney, § 4; State v. Hively, 103 W.Va. 237, 136 S.E. 862; State v. Moose, 110 W.Va. 476, 158 S.E. 715. If a prosecting attorney or special prosecuting attorney intentionally withholds information as to material evidence which would affect the gui......
-
State v. Lewis, No. 10146
...argument, of fact outside the evidence or not fairly inferable from the evidence, and to do so is error. State v. Moose, 110 W.Va. 476, 158 S.E. 715. Personal abuse by a prosecuting attorney of the defendant or witnesses during the examination of witnesses or in the argument before the jury......
-
State v. Burdette, No. 10274
...upon State v. McLane, 126 W.Va. 219, 27 S.E.2d 604; State v. Hively, 103 W.Va. 237, 136 S.E. 862; and State v. Moose, 110 W.Va. 476, 158 S.E. 715. These cases, we think, have no application The defendant Burdette further complains that the sentence imposed by the trial court is 'a violation......
-
State v. Grubbs, No. 16988
...role with which he is cloaked under the law." We recognized in part of the single Syllabus of State v. Moose, 110 W.Va. 476, 158 S.E. 715 (1931), that "[i]t is a flagrant abuse of [the prosecutor's] position to refer, Page 831 in his argument to the jury, to material facts outside the recor......