Miller v. State
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Hill, C. J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, where only one sale was proved, it was improper for the solicitor-general, in concluding the argument, to refer to the defendant as “this notorious character, this notorious blind tiger;” and on objection made to such language by the defendant’s counsel, it was the duty of the court to reprimand counsel and instruct the jury that they should disregard the improper language so used by the solicitor-general.
Judgment reversed.
Concurrence
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Russell, J.,
concurring specially. I concur, but I think that regardless of the number of sales, the language was improper, unless the character of the defendant had been put in issue.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.