Gielow v. State

The appellant was found guilty of maintaining a common nuisance, as defined in §20, ch. 4, Acts of 1917. His motion for a new trial was overruled. He has appealed from the judgment of fine and imprisonment.

It is contended by appellant that the court erred in refusing to discharge the jury on account of misconduct of the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument and in giving each of three instructions.

The prosecuting attorney made the following statement to the jury: “That violations had taken place and at another time search was made other than „we made this time, on January 7th, and…