CONN v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 39108.

Attorney(S)

R.D. Wigginton, Gulfport, for appellant. Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. I. In order to preserve for review here the point that the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence, a motion for a new trial must be made particularly assigning that ground. Young v. State, 212 Miss. 460, 54 So.2d 671; Youngblood v. State, 216 Miss. 202, 62 So.2d 218. II. Each person present, consenting to the commission of the offense and doing any act which is an ingredient in the crime, or immediately connected with it, or leading to its commission, is as much a principal as if he had with his own hand committed the whole offense. Funderburk v. State, 219 Miss. 596, 69 So.2d 496; McCoy v. State, 91 Miss. 257, 44 So. 814. III. A person may be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice if such testimony is reasonable. Larry v. State, 211 Miss. 563, 52 So.2d 292; Young v. State, supra.

Judges

ROBERDS, P.J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

CONN v. STATE.

1. Criminal law — verdict contrary to evidence — question not available on appeal — absence of motion for new trial.

2. Larceny — evidence sustained conviction.

Evidence supported conviction of grand larceny, the stealing of an automobile.

Headnotes as approved by Roberds, P.J.

ROBERDS, P.J.

Conn was convicted of grand larceny — the stealing of an automobile — and sentenced to the state penitentiary for four years. (Hn 1) The only contention made on this appeal is that the verdict of the jury was against the great weight of the evidence. There are two answers to this contention: First, this question was not presented to the trial judge by a motion for a new trial. This Court has held time and time again that this must be done, else this Court will not reverse for that reason. Youngblood v. State, 216 Miss. 202, 62 So.2d 218. And the Second answer to the contention is that the testimony in this case presented sharply to the jury the guilt or innocence of the defendant. (Hn 2) The jury returned a verdict of guilty and there is ample evidence to support the verdict.

Affirmed.

Hall, Lee, Kyle and Holmes, JJ., concur.

CONN v. STATE.

Comments