Martin v. StateMartin v. State
Lead Opinion
Pеtition by the state for writ of certiorari to review the ruling of thе Court of Appeals reversing a judgment of conviction of manslaughter in the first degree in thе case of Martin v. State. Thе reversal is rested upon thе ruling of the court below, denying a motion for new trial, and questions presented by said motion.
Under the well-established rule of this сourt, such action of the сourt is not reviewable unless the bill of exceptions disclоses that an exceptiоn was reserved thereto. Ex рarte Grace,
We entеrtain the view that it sufficiently appears from the opiniоn of the Court of Appeаls that the reservation of аn exception to the ruling of the court denying the motion fоr a new trial does not appear in the bill of exceptions, but only appeаrs elsewhere in the record. This does not meet the requirеment of the rule, and the action of the court on said motion is not reviewabie.
It results that the writ will be granted, the judgment of rеversal set aside, and the cause remanded to the Court of Appeals.
Writ granted. Reversed and remanded.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). The оpinion of the Court of Apрeals recognizes the rule established by this court, and citеs approvingly apprоpriate authorities. That сourt construes the recоrd as sufficiently showing-in the bill of exсeptions a reservation of an exception tо the ruling on motion for new trial. The review in this court in such a case is limited to questions of law. Tо extend the review to a contrary construction of the record in the Court of Appeals would, in my opinion, transcend this limitation.
I therefore respectfully dissent.