Wrenn v. State

Apr 16, 1913
4688
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Hill
Hill, C. J.

1. Where the testimony of a witness relied upon ‍​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍by the accused to prove án alibi, and for whose absence ‘a continuance was asked, would not have been sufficient for ‍​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍that purpose, the refusal to grant the motion for a continuance will not require a new trial.

2. The description of the ‍​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍property alleged to have been stolen, given in the indictment, was sufficient for the purpose of identification and notice to ‍​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍the accused, although some of the words of description consisted of technical terms requiring explanation by expert evidence.

3. No error of ‍​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍law appears, and the evidence strongly supports the verdict. ’ Judgment affirmed.