Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • Jesse M. Byrd and Ben Stevens, for appellant. R.O. Arrington, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges
  • Roberds, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • Jesse M. Byrd and Ben Stevens, for appellant. R.O. Arrington, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges
  • Roberds, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Clark v. State — Supreme Court of Mississippi (Roberds, J.) — April 11 & May 23, 1949

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from an appeal and a subsequent suggestion of error in Clark v. State, taken to the Supreme Court of Mississippi from the circuit court of George County (trial judge: L.C. Corban, J.). The record reflects that there was a verdict of guilty returned at trial; the defendant (appellant) pursued an appeal, and later filed a suggestion of error. Many of the points raised on the suggestion of error had been raised and argued on the original appeal. The principal contested procedural question is whether a claim that a verdict is against the weight of the evidence may be raised on appeal in the absence of a motion for a new trial in the lower court.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the contention that a verdict is against the weight of the evidence may be raised on appeal when no motion for a new trial (raising that ground) was filed in or passed upon by the trial court.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • Counsel for the appellant contended that they had found no statute or decision requiring that, before an appellate litigant can avail themselves of the contention that a verdict is against the weight of the evidence, that contention must first be embodied in a motion for a new trial in the lower court and be passed upon by the trial judge.
  • Counsel emphasized that the court's earlier opinion did not cite authority establishing such a procedural prerequisite.

Appellee's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the appellee's (State's) specific legal arguments in opposition to the appellant's position.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Justice et al. v. State, 170 Miss. 96, 154 So. 265 Cited as part of the body of authority recognizing the established rule requiring a motion for new trial to preserve the claim that a verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Listed by the court among the authorities demonstrating the long-established rule.
Sones v. State, 155 So. 188 Same: authority for the established procedural rule regarding motions for new trial. Included in the court's list of supporting authorities.
Judon v. State, 155 So. 428 Same procedural principle. Cited by the court as confirming the rule.
Bryant v. State, 172 Miss. 210, 157 So. 346 Same procedural principle. Relied on as part of the settled Mississippi rule.
State Highway Commission v. Chatham et al., 173 Miss. 427, 161 So. 674 Same procedural principle (applicable to civil and criminal cases). Listed to show the rule's application across contexts.
P.D. Spradling v. State, 163 So. 144 Same procedural principle. Included in the catalogue of cases illustrating the settled rule.
Vanderslice v. State, 166 So. 372 Same procedural principle. Cited by the court to demonstrate precedent.
Johnson v. State, 168 So. 479 Same procedural principle. Relied upon as authority for the rule.
Ephraim v. State, 174 So. 815 Same procedural principle. Included in the list supporting the rule.
Byrd v. State, 179 Miss. 336, 175 So. 190 Same procedural principle. Quoted as part of the established body of authority.
Flynn v. Kurn et al., 183 Miss. 413, 184 So. 160 Same procedural principle. Cited among the controlling authorities.
Moore v. State, 194 So. 921 Same procedural principle. Listed by the court as precedent.
Manning v. State, 188 Miss. 393, 195 So. 319 Same procedural principle. Included in the court's roster of supporting cases.
Cunningham v. State, 200 So. 248 Same procedural principle. Cited as additional authority for the settled rule.
McDougal v. State, 199 Miss. 39, 23 So.2d 920 Same procedural principle. Listed among cases confirming the rule.
Holmes v. State, 201 Miss. 509, 29 So.2d 312 Same procedural principle. Included in the court's list of precedents.
Anderson v. State, 203 Miss. 850, 33 So.2d 790 Same procedural principle. Relied upon as supporting authority.
Prior opinion of this Court, 39 So.2d 784 Applied the principle by declining to examine an assignment that the evidence was insufficient when there had been no motion for a new trial raising that ground. Quoted by the court as the explanation previously used in the case and reaffirmed here.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court explained its approach in several steps:

  1. Procedural posture: The points raised on the suggestion of error were those already raised on the original appeal; the court nevertheless chose to respond to one contention reasserted on suggestion of error concerning the sufficiency/weight of the evidence.
  2. Statement of prior treatment: The court noted that on the original appeal it had stated (39 So.2d 784) that while the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, the court would not examine an assignment based on the contrary contention because there had been no motion for a new trial on that ground.
  3. Addressing counsel's objection: Counsel complained there was no statute or decision requiring that such a contention be embodied in a motion for a new trial or passed upon by the trial judge. The court replied that it cited no specific authority in the earlier opinion because the rule has long been established and widely recognized in Mississippi.
  4. Rationale for the rule: The court articulated the underlying reason: the trial judge cannot be put in error on a matter which was never presented to him for decision. That rationale supports requiring that the issue be raised first in a motion for a new trial so the trial court has an opportunity to pass on it.
  5. Scope of application: The court explicitly stated that the rule applies to both civil and criminal cases.
  6. Supporting authorities: To illustrate and confirm that the rule is well established, the court listed a series of Mississippi cases that embody or reflect the rule. The cited authorities were offered as sources counsel could consult to verify the rule's existence and scope.
  7. Disposition: On the basis of this settled procedural rule and its prior treatment of the question in the same matter, the court overruled the suggestion of error.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court overruled the suggestion of error and reaffirmed the settled rule that a contention that a verdict is against the weight of the evidence cannot be considered on appeal unless it was first presented in a motion for a new trial in the lower court and passed upon by the trial judge.

Implications:

  • Direct effect: The appellant's contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence was not considered on appeal because it had not been raised in a motion for a new trial; accordingly, the suggestion of error was overruled.
  • Precedential effect: The opinion treats the stated rule as long-established Mississippi law and cites numerous prior decisions as authority. The court did not attempt to create a new rule but rather reaffirmed existing procedural doctrine; the opinion therefore does not purport to establish novel precedent but reinforces the existing requirement that trial-court review via a motion for new trial is a prerequisite to appellate review on that ground.

Case caption and counsel as shown in the opinion: Appellant counsel — Jesse M. Byrd and Ben Stevens; Assistant Attorney General R.O. Arrington for the State. Trial court: Circuit Court of George County, Judge L.C. Corban. Opinion authored by Justice Roberds. Suggestion of error overruled.

Show full summary ...

CLARK v. STATE

1. Appeal — verdict against weight of evidence, not to be raised in absence of motion for a new trial.

In the absence of a motion for a new trial, assigning it as a ground, the point may not be raised on appeal that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Headnote as approved by Roberds, J.

Roberds, J.

The points raised on the suggestion of error were all raised and argued on the original appeal. Nevertheless we deem it advisable to respond to one of the contentions urged again on the suggestion of error. In responding to the contention made on the appeal that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict of guilty we used this language [39 So.2d 784]: "While the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, we do not examine the assignment based upon a contrary contention, there having been no motion for a new trial based upon such ground."

Counsel say they have found no statute or decision holding that before a litigant can avail of the contention the verdict is against the weight of the evidence that it is essential that contention be embodied in a motion for a new trial in the lower court and be passed upon by the trial judge, and, they add, ". . . it is notable that the court in its opinion cited none so holding." The reason we cited no authority was that this has been the established and settled rule in this state for many years, so known and recognized, we thought, by the bench and bar generally. The reason underlying the rule is that the trial judge cannot be put in error as to a matter which was never presented to him for decision. It applies to both civil and criminal cases. If counsel desire to verify the existence of the rule and enlighten themselves upon the subject they might read Justice et al. v. State, 170 Miss. 96, 154 So. 265; Sones v. State, Miss. 155 So. 188; Judon v. State, Miss., 155 So. 428; Bryant v. State, 172 Miss. 210, 157 So. 346; State Highway Commission v. Chatham et al., 173 Miss. 427, 161 So. 674; P.D. Spradling v. State, Miss., 163 So. 144; Vanderslice v. State, Miss. 166 So. 372; Johnson v. State, Miss., 168 So. 479; Ephraim v. State, Miss., 174 So. 815; Byrd v. State, 179 Miss. 336, 175 So. 190; Flynn v. Kurn et al., 183 Miss. 413, 184 So. 160; Moore v. State, Miss., 194 So. 921; Manning v. State, 188 Miss., 393, 195 So. 319; Cunningham v. State, Miss., 200 So. 248; McDougal v. State, 199 Miss. 39, 23 So.2d 920; Holmes v. State, 201 Miss. 509, 29 So.2d 312; Anderson v. State, 203 Miss. 850, 33 So.2d 790.

Suggestion of error overruled.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

CLARK v. STATE
(May 23, 1949)