The defendant assigns as error the denial of his motion for nonsuit. The defendant contends “that the court erred in failing to nonsuit the case based on the uncorroborаted testimony of an accomplice
. ... ”
The record is replete with evidence tending to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice, Jesse Johnson. Furthermore, the unsupported testimony of an accompliсe is sufficient to sustain a conviction if it satisfies the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant.
State v. Tilley,
Defendant also contends that he was prejudicеd by the trial court’s summary of the testimony of Sheriff Bebber wherein the court stated that, upon approaching the automobile in which the defendant and his friends had been riding, Bebber “saw movements and saw Tony Mink and David Connor switch.” The court had earlier rulеd that the sheriff’s statement that there was movement in the front seat “as if somebody wаs switching drivers” should be stricken. This contention is without merit.
“Slight inadvertencies in recapitulating the evidence or stating contentions must be called to the attention of thе court
*206
in time for correction. Objection after verdict comes too lаte.”
State v. Goines,
Defendant, by his third assignment of error, contends the court erred in allowing the assistаnt district attorney on cross-examination of the defendant to elicit evidence that the defendant made no statement to anyone, and particularly tо Sheriff Bebber, regarding the fact that the television set and radios were in the autоmobile occupied by the defendant and the two accomplices. Thе defendant further contends that the court committed prejudicial error in allоwing the assistant district attorney to cross-examine David Connor with respect to the defendant’s silence.
We recognize the principle that evidence аs to the silence of a defendant in the face of an accusatory statement is incompetent when the accused has been taken into custody аnd police officers are present.
Miranda v. Arizona,
Finally, the defendant сontends, based on four exceptions noted in the record, that the assistant distriсt attorney made prejudicial and improper statements to the jury which entitle the defendant to a new trial. Procedurally, none of the defendant’s objections to the argument of the assistant district attorney is properly before this Court in that the record clearly discloses that such objections were not brought to the attention of the trial court for rulings thereon prior to submission of the case tо the jury. Objections to portions of the State’s argument to the jury should be made before the case is submitted to the jury.
State v. Peele,
We have carefully examined each еxception upon which these assignments of error are based and find no imprоpriety upon the part of the assistant district attorney in his argument to the jury which would warrant the trial judge’s intervention. These assignments of error have no merit.
The defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.
No error.