State v. Sam Moose, (No. 6832)
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Writing for the Court | HATCHER, J. |
| Citation | 110 W.Va. 476 |
| Parties | State v. Sam Moose |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6832) |
110 W.Va. 476
State
v.
Sam Moose
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Submitted May 12, 1931.
Decided May 19, 1931.
[110 W.Va. 476]
Criminal Law
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 deducible therefrom.
Error to Circuit Court, Raleigh County.
Sam Moose was convicted of robbery, and he bring error.
Reversed; new trial awarded.
C. R. Harless and Kee & Lubliner, for plaintiff in error. Howard B. Lee, Attorney General and W. Elliott Nefflen, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Hatcher, Judge:
Defendant seeks reversal of a conviction and sentence for robbery.
On the night of June 16, 1928, Leo Dominick, of Glen White, West Virginia, 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
[110 W.Va. 477]
that he saw defendant talking with Dominick at the time two men hired the taxi.
Defendant resides at Sophia, West Virginia, 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 Jaw, which made it exteremely 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hamric, No. 12525
...fair and impartial 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 w......
-
State v. Lewis, No. 10146
...in his 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 t......
-
State v. Burdette, No. 10274
...below relies 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......
-
State v. Grubbs, No. 16988
...abandon the quasi-judicial 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 mater......
-
State v. Hamric, No. 12525
...fair and impartial 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 w......
-
State v. Lewis, No. 10146
...in his 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 t......
-
State v. Burdette, No. 10274
...below relies 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......
-
State v. Grubbs, No. 16988
...abandon the quasi-judicial 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 mater......