State v. White, Criminal 893
| Decision Date | 22 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | Criminal 893 |
| Citation | 56 Ariz. 189,106 P.2d 508 |
| Parties | STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant, v. ARNOLD WHITE, Appellee |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Cochise. John Wilson Ross, Judge. Order affirmed.
Mr. Joe Conway, Attorney General, Mr. Burr Sutter, Associate Counsel for State of Arizona, Mr. Frank E. Thomas, County Attorney and Mr. David J. Marks, Deputy County Attorney, for Appellant.
Mr John F. Ross, for Appellee.
This is an appeal by the State of Arizona from an order of the superior court of Cochise county granting Arnold White hereinafter called defendant, a new trial. The facts necessary for a disposition of the appeal may be stated as follows:
Defendant was tried by a jury in the superior court of Cochise county, and convicted of presenting false and fraudulent claims to the State of Arizona. After conviction, defendant filed a motion for new trial, setting forth as grounds thereof, among other things:
The motion was granted on these two grounds expressly.
The general rule in regard to an appeal from an order granting or denying a new trial is that the matter is discretionary with the trial court, and will not be reviewed by this court unless it appears affirmatively there has been an abuse of discretion. We examine the record, therefore, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the trial court did abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on both of the grounds set forth, for if it was correct on either, the fact that it was incorrect on the other is immaterial.
The first ground is that there was not sufficient corroboration of the testimony of Francis H. Harrison, who was admittedly an accomplice of defendant, if the latter were guilty of the crime charged. Our statute on this point, being section 5055, Revised Code of 1928, reads as follows:
It will be seen thereby that the corroborating evidence does not need of itself to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if it "tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense." Reynolds v. State, 14 Ariz. 302, 127 P. 731, 732; Jenkins v. State, 23 Ariz. 485, 205 P. 322. And it is not necessary that any particular testimony of the accomplice be corroborated. Kingsbury v. State, 27 Ariz. 289, 232 P. 887. It is unnecessary for us to set forth in this opinion the corroborating evidence. We are of the opinion that it was properly admitted, and was amply sufficient to sustain a conviction of defendant, under section 5055, supra.
The second question is more serious. The county attorney, during his final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson, 4151
...argument: "(Counsel for Williams): Your Honor, I would object. COURT: We are not going to interrupt argument." In State v. White, 56 Ariz. 189, 193, 106 P.2d 508, 510 (1940), the prosecutor made certain statements during closing argument to which the defense failed to object. Addressing the......
-
State v. Beers
...must be left to the sound discretion of the trial court on motion for a new trial. Hoy v. State, 53 Ariz. 440, 90 P.2d 623; State v. White, 56 Ariz. 189, 106 P.2d 508. If there has been no abuse of that discretion and it appears that substantial justice has been done the court will not reve......
-
State v. Evans
...provoked, they are not grounds for reversal. Post v. State, 41 Ariz. 23, 15 P.2d 246. Defendant urges that the case of State v. White, 56 Ariz. 189, 106 P.2d 508, 510, stands for the proposition that a defendant has not waived his right to object to matters in the closing argument if a 'mot......
-
State v. Turner, 1230
...29, 1961. If the motion was granted on either ground, the fact that it was incorrect on the other ground is immaterial. State v. White, 56 Ariz. 189, 106 P.2d 508. The general rule in this jurisdiction is that granting or denying a new trial is discretionary with the trial court and will no......