To answer the question, one needs to take into account two important issues. First, under what jurisdiction Jesus could have been tried for the use of magic and second, whether his actions could have been construed as magic thus warranting a criminal case in the first place.

Given that Jesus lived in Judea, a Roman province and lived among the Hebrews, he was a subject to both Roman and Jewish law. Magical activities were mentioned in the Twelve Tablets (5th century BCE), some also mention laws of Sulla (81 BCE), although the latter were focusing on the measures taken against assassins* and poisoners that could have been used against people who have accidentally caused illness or death after administering magical potion (e.g. love potion or 'amatoriae'). But let us return to the law of the Twelve Tables. We can find there (Tab.VIII,8a) a note that anyone 'who enchants the fruits away' ('qui fruges excantassit...') or, in general 'who casts and evil spell' ('qui malum carmen incantassit') commits a crime (Tab.VIII,1a). It should be noted that in the latter cases the term for 'casting and evil spell' is literally 'singing am evil song').

Curiously, we have an account mentioning the specific case that was investigated in 24 CE, during the reign of Tiberius. According to Tacitus, certain Plautius Silvanus threw his wife down the stairs (or through the window) killing her. His father-in-law accused Silvanus' former wife, Numantina (possibly hailing from Iberian Numantia) of magically causing this outburst of rage and memory lapse, as Silvanus claimed that he can't recollect the event. Long story short, investigation shown obvious signs of struggle, Silvanus committed suicide and Numantina was promptly acquitted.

Second known case tells of Lucius Apuleius Madaurensis (famous for his 'Metaporphoses' known also as 'The Golden Ass'), tried in 158 CE (so, this is outside our timeframe, but I bring it here just in case) in Sabratha (province of Africa) for allegedly using magic to seduce Pudentilla, a rich widow (and a mother of his school friend Pontianus, no less) into marrying him. Similarly to the previous case, Pontianus' father in law (apparently angered that Pudentilla's fortune won't pass to her son and, by extension, to his daughter) accused Apuleius that he made Pudentilla marry him against her will by the use of magical means. Apuleius' legendary defensive speech is now known as 'Apologia' (or 'Apulei Platonici pro Se de Magia') and gives a very go insight into how magic was seen in the Roman Empire. Its English translation by H.E. Butler is available on Gutenberg.

Now, that was a pretty large digression, but I made it to point two important things. First, Romans believed in magic but did not treat it as something criminal or even undesirable per se. For them, this was just one of the methods to act, and as any other actions, only maleficent actions were considered punishable. In other words, being a magician, or performing any form of magic was not a crime. Doing harm via magic, as doing any other harm, was usually a grounds of punishment. Second, as only harmful actions were considered undesirable, Romans usually required proof of causal relation between alleged use of magic and specific crime (that, for obvious reasons, was very hard to prove) as is readily explained in 'Apologia'.

Miracles described by Evangelists are never of a maleficent kind but quite the opposite - they universally help the sick and crippled and on an occasion, even bring dead back to life. There is no harm done or any ulterior motives ever suggested. So, in the light of Roman approach to magic, would not be even considered something one could accuse Jesus of. Even if the miracles could have been construed as magic, the usage of magical powers was not a crime. There was no law forbidding anyone to cure the crippled or bringing people to life.

When it comes to Jewish law, the problem is also quite clear. According to the Old Testament, soothsaying and dream interpretation were not considered sinful, as presented in Deut 13:2-6, where only attempt to divert a faithful Jew from their faith is considered a crime. Exodus 22:17 laconically states 'you shall not suffer a witch to live', although it may be possible that the original intention was different. Jer 27:9 also suggests that various soothsayers and magicians were present among the Jews as Jeremiah warns not to listen to these people if they vote against alliance with Nebuchadnezzar. Furthermore, and this in my opinion is crucial here, Deut 18:15-22 (especially 21-22) speaks of prophets who will prophesize and perform miracles in the name of God. And this is exactly how Jesus is treated according to John, e.g. John 9:17, where man cured of his blindness and asked what does he think of the healer, says 'He is a prophet'. Also, in John 5:15-18 we can find a conjecture that after healing a crippled man, Jesus antagonized religious authorities not because of his miracle, but because he did it on Sabbath (thus violating common laws) and called himself Son of God (what was considered a blasphemy). Given that John in his writings is openly hostile to Pharisees and accuses them of conspiring against Jesus' life but doesn't mention that they opposed the miracles themselves meaning that they were indeed treating Jesus as a bona fide prophet.

So, to sum it up, Jesus was not tried for magic use because his miracles were not considered harmful (and thus illegal) by Romans and were not considered by illegal or magic by Jews. In other words, according to the present laws Jesus could have been subjected to, his miracles could have not been classified as a crime by any local authority.

*The term used was 'sicarii', literally meaning 'stabbers' and thus meaning people killing directly with hand-held weapons, thus the legal discrimination between them and poisoners.