State v. StephensState v. Stephens
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Tolman
Aрpellant appeals from а conviction upon a chargе of being a bootlegger, and assigns аs error the overruling of his motion for а new trial, (a) because of certain statements alleged to have been *559made by tbe deputy prosеcuting attorney in his closing argument to tbе jury; and (b) because, it is contended, tbe state prohibition law is superseded or suspended by tbe eighteenth amendment to tbe constitution of tbe United States, and tbe Volstead act passed pursuant thereto.
Upon tbe grоund last stated, this court has already passed, bolding adversely to apрellant’s contention. State v. Turner, 115 Wash. 170, 196 Pac. 638.
Upon tbe first contention, it is sufficient to say that tbe matters complained of are shоwn in tbe record only by affidavit of tbe аppellant in support of bis motion for a new trial, made a part of tbe statement of facts, and it does not appear that any objection was made or exception taken at tbe time, or that any request was then made to have tbe jury instructed to disregard what are now said tо be improper statements by tbe рrosecutor. Furthermore, it does appear by tbe same affidavit that tbe jury was instructed to disregard any statements of counsel not borne out by tbе testimony, and tbe prosecutor, by сounter affidavit, denies having made tbе prejudicial remarks attributed to him, аnd sets forth what be claims was said, amоunting to no more than that which frequently occurs in tbe beat of trial and under рrovocation from oppоsing counsel.
Tbe trial judge who presided was of tbe opinion that tbe prosecutor made no statements whiсh were prejudicial to tbe aрpellant, and, in view of tbe state оf tbe record, we are not disposed to inquire into tbe matter. But if we werе, we could not find that tbe trial court erred in so bolding.
Judgment affirmed.
Paeker, C. J., Holcomb, Main, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.