Chapter VII - The Apeal
(Filed Feb 19 - 1912, with W. H. L. Campbell, Clerk,
In the Criminal Court of Appeals State of Oklahoma)
Appeal - No. A-1618
N. L. Miller - Plaintiff in Error vs.
The State of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error
Petition In Error
Comes now said plaintiff in error and alleges and complains of said defendant in error and as grounds for such complaint avers that at the adjourned July 1911 term of the District Court of Woodward County, State of Oklahoma, held in the month of September 1911, in an action therein pending in said Court on a change of venue from the District Court of Woods County, Oklahoma, wherein the State of Oklahoma was plaintiff, and the said N. L. Miller, plaintiff in error, herein was defendant, he was by the verdict of a jury and the judgment of the Court found guilty of the crime of the murder of one Mabel Oakes, and as a result of such conviction and judgment of the Court sentenced to the State penitentiary, at McAlester, Oklahoma for the term of his natural life, at hard labor.
A certified and authenticated case-made properly attested is hereunto attached, marked A and made a part of this petition in error.
And the said plaintiff in error, N. L. Miller, alleges that there is error in said proceedings, affecting the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error, as appears from said case-made, in this to wit,
1. The trial court erred in overruling the motion of plaintifff in error for a new trial.
2. Said court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error in arrest of judgment.
3. Said court erred in not permitting counsel for plaintiff in error to save exceptions to the remarks of counsel for the State at the time such remarks were made.
4. Said court erred in overruling the application of plaintiff in error to have the court reporter to take down and preserve the remarks of counsel for the State in his closing argument.
5. The Court erred in threatening counsel for plaintiff in error, in the presence and hearing of the jury, when they attempted to protect rights of plaintiff in error, by objecting to a tirade of abuse on plaintiff in error by Moman Pruitt (sic) in his closing argument.
6. The Court erred in admitting illegal and incompetent evidence.
7. The court erred in refusing Instruction marked A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J requested by plaintiff in error.
8. The Court erred in giving instructions No. One, Eight, Eleven, Twelve and Thirteen, duly excepted to by plaintiff in error.
9. The Court erred in refusing to permit counsel to put leading questions to witness for the State, on cross-examination.
10. The court erred in permitting lay witnesses to testify and give opinions as experts, in matters about which they had no special knowledge.
11. The Court erred in not requiring the State to admit as true the facts set forth as the testimony of the absent witness James Roller.
12. The Court erred in permitting counsel for the State to except, in the presence of the jury, to every adverse ruling to the contention of the counsel for the State.
13. The Court erred in permitting Moman Pruitt, counsel for the State to impersonate, jurors, Harry McGiff, Henry C. Thompson, Mr. Philips, and George B. Welty, by calling their names during his closing argument.
14. The Court erred further in not permitting counsel for plaintiff in error to protest against the conduct of said Attorney set out in assignment No. 13.
15. The Court erred in permitting witness for the State to invade the province of the jury and to pass upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
16. The court erred i not sustaining the demurrer to the evidence interposed by plaintiff in error, and advising the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
17. The Court erred in admitting irrelevant and incompetent testimony which was calculated to, and did inflame the minds of the jury against the plaintiff in error and prevented him from having a fair and impartial trial of the charge against him.
18. The Court erred in permitting Moman Pruitt, counsel for the State in his closing argument to refer to plaintiff in error as a murderer, scoundrel and villain.
19. The court erred further in not permitting counsel for plaintiff in error to call the reporter and preserve the remarks of counsel for the State.
20. The court erred in not ordering the plaintiff in error discharged at the close of the evidence for lack of sufficient evidence to warrant the case submitted to the jury.
Wherefore for the errors above referred to and for the manifold errors appearing in the record plaintiff in error prays that the judgment rendered in this cause be set aside and that said cause be remanded for a new trial, or the cause be ordered dismissed for lack of legal and competent testimony to sustain any verdict against plaintiff in error.
Signed by:
N. L. Miller, Plaintiff in Error
L. T. Wilson & Charles Swindall
Attorneys for Plaintiff in Error
© . Linda Mcgill Wagner - began © 1999 Contact Me