that piece of evidence in closing argument, is an unknown, and I think it’s clear from the proof that they’ve inadvertently destroyed what could be called a material piece of evidence. As stated, the trial court denied Trollinger a directed verdict on the basis that the State had produced sufficient evidence for the crime of murder for its submission to the jury. Trollinger failed to assign as error in his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial that he was denied a fair trial. Rather, his averments rested on arguments that the evidence was insufficient to support his guilty verdict or, alternatively, that the overwhelming weight of the evidence presented at trial required Trollinger’s release from the judgment. See Pool v. State, 483 So.2d 331, 335 (Miss.1986) (<HOLDING>). In presenting his argument on appeal,
holding that where defendant failed to raise defense of plaintiffs fraud in federal court defendant is barred from raising that issue in state court holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal holding that defendant was procedurally barred from raising issue on appeal where issue was listed as grounds in motion for new trial holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that  was not raised on appeal