Esa v. State

Wade, O. J.

1. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining that the verdict was “contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it,” and “contrary to law,” are not insisted upon in the briefs of counsel for the plaintiff in error. On the contrary, it is expressly admitted in the reply brief of his counsel that the verdict of voluntary manslaughter was authorized, and could have been legally based upon either the evidence for the State or the statement of the accused.

2. “Where a juror is put upon a defendant being tried under indictment - for a criminal offense, and…