Opinion ID: 1792684
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mrs Voigt's case only)

Text: This assignment complains that the trial court committed prejudicial error in stating to the jury in its oral charge that the wanton count was being eliminated for technical reasons. Defendants excepted to the use of this language, whereupon the trial court proceeded further to explain why the wanton count was eliminated. While the use of the words for technical reasons might have been somewhat inept in charging out this count, we do not think the trial court committed reversible error by use of the language. The court in its oral charge to the jury, after exception, used appropriate and adequate diction as to why this count was eliminated. The contention of appellants that the trial court's diction in the use of the afore-quoted words tended to put the court in the attitude of casting some distrust, doubt or suspicion upon defendants' case is without merit.