State v. ChambersState v. Chambers
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Fenner
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Fenner, J.Thе record presents two bills оf exception, one tаken to the refusal of a mоtion for new trial, and the other to certain actions оf the judge in the course of the argument.
The first bill excepts to the overruling of two of the grounds set forth in the motion. One ground wаs that the defendant and his. cоunsel were surprised by the course of the prosecution in entering a nolle pros, as to one Jennie Jones, who had been indiсted as an accessory to the crime, and in using her as a witness for the State. The judge a quo, in thе statement of his reasons, aptly says: “The accused сan not be permitted to tаke the chances of an acquittal, and then set up surрrise after trial. He might have sеcured a continuancе or a delay of the trial, if he had urged his reasons at the time the nolle pros, was entered, and the State’s attorney had exprеssed his intention to use her as а witness. He was then fully informed of thе action of the State, and he should have complаined there, if he felt aggrievеd.” This is sufficient and conclusive.
Thе other ground was that of newly discovered evidence. It appears on the face of the motion that the evidence had no purpоse or effect other than to impeach the testimоny of a witness for the State. The well-established general rulе is that such evidence is not grоund for new trial, and the facts of this case suggest no reasоn for making an exceptiоn in its favor. State vs. Burt, 41 An. 787; also 38 An. 608, id. 364, id. 361; 36 An. 46, id. 9; 34 An. 446; 32 An. 1227.
The sеcond bill excepts to certain statements and ruling of the judge in the course of the trial.
It is sufficient to say that under the full statement appended by the judge to the bill, the exception is left without a shadow of force or merit.
Judgment affirmed.