Scott v. State
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Broyles, 0. J.
1. The' ground of the motion for new trial complaining of the admission of certain testimony of a witness for the State is without merit, since the ground discloses that the testimony was elicited from the witness (presumably, on cross-examination) by counsel for the movant. Where counsel on the cross-examination of a witness takes a chance by propounding a dangerous question, he will not be heard to object to the answer, no matter how prejudicial it may be, if the answer is a direct and pertinent response to the question. 1
2. After the introduction of evidence and the conclusion of arguments by counsel for both parties, it is within the sound discretion of the court to reopen the case and allow the introduction of additional evidence and further argument by counsel; and this discretion, unless manifestly abused, will not be controlled by the reviewing court. In this case no such abuse of discretion appears.
3. The defendant was convicted of selling whisky, and of keeping whisky at his place of business. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
MacIntyre and Querry, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 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.