Criminal law — Practice — Trial — Remarks of counsel — Procedure following objection — Time of objection — Nature of remarks — Attitude of court — Reference to guilt of defendant — Reference to money of depositors in bank — Fraudulent conversion — Embezzlement.
1. Where objection is made to the remarks of counsel in an argument to the jury, (1) following the objection and request for the withdrawal of a juror, the court should direct the stenographer to place upon the record the remarks as the court understood them; or, (2) on his failure to do so, counsel may place the remarks on the record by affidavit. [137-8]
2. Objection to the remarks of counsel must be made at once, as soon as the objectionable language is used. [138]
3. Whether or not the judgment against the defendant in a criminal trial will be reversed because of the remarks of the district attorney depends not only on the remarks themselves but also on the attitude of the court following objection and the probable effect as reflected in the verdict of the jury. [143-4]
4. It is proper for the Commonwealth's attorney to argue to the jury that the evidence establishes the guilt of the defendant, and that certain facts in evidence are conclusive, though he may not express his own personal belief in the defendant's guilt. [139-41]
5. On the trial of indictments charging fraudulent conversion and embezzlement by an officer of a bank, it is not reversible error for the Commonwealth's attorney in his argument to the jury to refer to the money alleged to have been embezzled as being the depositors' money. [142]
Criminal law — Practice — Trial — Points for charge — Remolding by court.
6. The court is not bound to remold points for charge and if, as presented, they cannot be affirmed, the court is justified in refusing them. [136]
Criminal law — Practice — Proof — Bill of particulars — Elaborating complaint — District attorney's bills — Discrepancies of evidence.
7. Alleged discrepancies between the evidence produced by the Commonwealth and a bill of particulars elaborating the complaint filed before the indictments were prepared, may not be assigned as error where the bill of particulars filed was confined to the complaint, not to any indictment, and the indictments to which the evidence related were district attorney's bills which were not based on any complaint and were sufficiently specific to require no bills of particulars. [136]
Argued May 21, 1934.
PER CURIAM, June 30, 1934:
The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed on the learned opinion of Judge KELLER, which fully and correctly determines all questions raised by the record.