Opinion ID: 1719467
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the lower court err in denying shavers a directed verdict at the close of the state's case?

Text: On appeal, appellant argues that his arrest was illegal and that in order for the state to make out a prima facie case it must conform with the rules of law involving arrest. This ground for directed verdict was not urged in the trial court, nor was it contained in appellant's motion for a directed verdict. We will not put the trial court in error on an issue not placed before it and we must deem this ground to have been waived. Ponder v. State, 335 So.2d 885 (Miss. 1976). Furthermore, when appellant proceeded to put on his alibi witnesses after his motion for a directed verdict had been denied, he waived any error that may have occurred in the trial court's denial of the motion. Rainer v. State, 438 So.2d 290, 291, 292 (Miss. 1983). There is no merit in appellant's second assignment of error.