State v. WireState v. Wire
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Watkins
Tlie opinion of tlie court was delivered by
Watkins, .1.The accused r^as indicted, tried and cоnvicted of rape, and from a sentence to lifetime imprisonment in the penitentiary, in pursuance of the verdict оf the jury, has prosecuted this appеal, which is predicated upon an alleged error of the trial judge in refusing to grant him a new trial, as prayed for.
The application for the new trial was not sivрported by any evidence, and no hill of exceptions was reserved for the accused, to the ruling complained of, and, even in the brief of defendant’s сounsel there is no suggestion of any errоr apparent upon the facе of the record, which would fatally affеct the proceedings.
However much we may he disposed to favor the libеrty of the citizen by entertaining appеals when the proper defense of the accused has suffered through neglеct, or mismanagement of counsel, wе will restrict that disposition to extreme сases, unless the record discloses error apparent, a hill of exceptions, motion in arrest of judgment, or prоper assignment of error. 38 Ann. State vs. Balizе; 40 S. 190; 7 N. S. 234; 40 S. 658; 5 N. S. 341.
Neither of those conditions exist in this case.
This court has repeatedly and recently held that it cannot take notice of any facts adduced during the trial of а criminal case, pertaining to rulings of thе judge, unless same accompanies a bill of exceptions, reserved аt the time such ruling was made. 35 Ann. 742, State vs. Williams; 32 Ann. 842, Statе vs. Nelson; 35 Ann. 823, State vs. Belden; 35 Ann. 769, State vs. Jacksоn.
The counsel for the defendant has filеd in this court what he styles an assignment of errors, and which is to the effect, that “all the/аcts stated in his brief as to the refusal of the judge a quo to allow a hill of exceptiоns to he drawn up * * * * and as to the statement of the prosecuting witness,” etc.; and furthеr to the effect that the judge *686stated from the bench “ that counsel might do so, but that he would not sign ” such a bill of exceptions — but suсh errors cannot be presented in this mаnner. 35 Ann. 770, State vs. Riculfi and McClung; 90 S. 275, Wallace vs. Thоmpson. They are certainly not apparent upon the face of the record, and on this form of procedure we cannot grant the requested ruling.
The judgment is bheiefove affirmed.