LEVI JACOBS
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a first-degree murder conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's proceedings. The court addressed objections to the State Attorney's closing arguments, holding that the trial court's instructions to confine arguments to evidence were sufficient.
The court held that the State Attorney's arguments did not constitute reversible error, as the trial court instructed counsel to confine their arguments to the evidence. Furthermore, any alleged grand jury irregularities were not preserved due to the lack of a plea in abatement.
“We can not conceive how a stronger case of murder in the first degree could be presented to a court or to a jury than is presented in this case.”
Establishes the court's view on the strength of the evidence presented at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of first-degree murder without a recommendation for mercy. During closing arguments, the State Attorney made two statement…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plea In Abatement cases and more on FLexlaw
this case the plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted for murder in the first degree without recommendation to mercy.
We can not conceive how a stronger case of murder in *516the first degree could be presented to a court or to a jury than is presented in this case.
It is contended by counsel that the judgment should be reversed, first, because of some illegality which is not shown by the record in connection with the impaneling of the grand jury. There was no plea in abatement. Therefore, if there was any irregularity it 'is not presented to this Court for consideration.
Another ground contended for is that the case should be reversed because the State Attorney, while arguing the case, said (referring to the defendant):
“A man that would do that would kill a white man for $10.00.”
The record shows that counsel for defense objected to the statement without stating any grounds of objection. The court then said:
“Counsel- will confine their argument to the testimony and reasonable deductions to he drawn therefrom. The jury are the sole judges of what has been testified to and the weight and credence to be given it. You will proceed.”
No exception noted.
• The record also shows the following statement was made by the State Attorney during the argument:
“That may happen if this man is sent to Raiford. He may escape, etc.”
Thereupon, counsel for defense stated:
“Counsel for defense objects to this line of argument on the ground that it presupposes something not based on the evidence in this case and I ask the Court to instruct counsel not to use this line of argument.”
Thereupon, the court said:
• “Please confine your argument to the testimony and reasonable deductions that may be drawn therefrom. I believe there is nothing in the evidence about that.”
*517No exception noted.
The record discloses no material error. The judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J„, concur.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.