Groben

Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction of involuntary manslaughter and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Appellant’s first point, that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict, is not well taken. There is at most only a conflict in the evidence.

The only point worthy of discussion in this appeal is the alleged misconduct of the district attorney occurring during the progress of the trial in his examination of the witness Shumaeher. After the witness had been asked if he had made a certain statement and had answered “No”, the following question was put to him by the district attorney: “Q. And that as a reason you said that Mr. Groben had been drinking 1” This question was objected to and was assigned by defendant’s attorney as misconduct on the part of the district attorney. The court in reply stated: “Yes, I think that goes beyond trying to show that the witness made a different statement at some other time and place, because the statement as to which you are now seeking to interrogate him is the statement that Mr. Groben did stop at the boulevard stop. Now, you are going further than that in attempting to show that he made some statement…