Bateman v. State
Decision Date | 31 January 1887 |
Citation | 64 Miss. 233,1 So. 172 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | G. W. BATEMAN v. THE STATE |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, HON. C. H CAMPBELL, Judge.
George W. Bateman was indicted for an assault and battery on Vines M. Wells with an intent to kill and murder him. The evidence to identify Bateman as the guilty party was circumstantial. The court, on the trial, admitted, over the objection of defendant, testimony that showed that criminal relations had existed between the wife of Wells and Batemen; that Wells knew of these relations, and on that account had separated from, and instituted suit against Bateman for the seduction of, his wife, who was then living with Bateman, and that this suit was still pending at the time of the assault on Wells. Some further facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The defendant was convicted and he appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
Sweatman Trotter & Trotter, for the appellant.
It is absolutely necessary in order to convict of a criminal offense that the defendant shall be arraigned. McQuillem v. State, 8 S. & M. 595; Wilson v. State, 42 Miss. 639; Cachute v. State, 50 Miss. 165.
These authorities establish the further rule of law that all pleas must be bye the defendant in person, and a defendant cannot plead by attorney.
Was there an arraignment of the defendant?
The authorities, so far as we have been able to find, are uniform in holding that an arraignment consists of reading the indictment to the defendant and calling on him to say in open court whether he is guilty or not. Wharton's Cr. Law § 530; 1 Arch. Cr. Pr. and Pl., § 108, note 1.
Archibald uses following language:
NOTE 1.--
The third requisite is entirely wanting in this case. The defendant, as the bill of exceptions shows, was never asked the question whether he was guilty or not.
He was never called on in open court to say whether he was guilty or not. It follows, then, that he was never arraigned, which, according to the authorities cited above, in our own State is essential to his conviction.
The attorney has no right to waive the arraignment and enter plea for the defendant. 42 Miss. 639; 50 Miss. 165; 8 S. & M. 595.
The testimony as to the adultery of defendant and Wells' wife was admitted over the objection of defendant.
This, we contend, was a collateral issue, and was not involved in the case, and the effect it had was to unduly prejudice the minds of the jury against the defendant, and hence it was error to admit it. Dowling v. State, 5 S. & M. 686-7.
T. M. Miller, Attorney General, for the State.
Upon the trial or at the commencement the district attorney called upon the defendant to listen to the reading of the indictment, which was then read accordingly. Immediately thereupon, the defendant saying nothing, his counsel, sitting beside him, said: "To which the defendant pleads not guilty."
The court then rightfully caused the defendant's plea of not guilty to be entered, and the trial was proceeded with without objection or exception.
It is insisted that it was error to admit proof of the illicit intercourse between defendant and the wife of Wells upon the ground that a collateral issue was thus presented. Not so; it is always admissible, and especially in cases depending on circumstantial evidence, to show a motive in defendant for desiring the death of the person injured.
The evidence tended to prove a double motive, both that defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. O'Kelley
...575; Fernandez v. State, 7 Ala. 511; Hudson v. State, 117 Ga. 704, 45 S. E. 66; State v. Thompson, 95 Iowa, 464, 64 N. W. 419; Bateman v. State, 64 Miss. 233, 1 South. 172; People v. Tower, 63 Hun, 624, 17 N. Y. Supp. 395; State v. Greene, 66 Iowa, 11, 23 N. W. 154; Avery v. People, 11 Ill.......
-
The State v. Fitch
... ... by going to trial without objection. [ Molihan v ... State, 30 Ind. 266; State v. Hayes, 67 Iowa 27, ... 24 N.W. 575; Fernandez v. State, 7 Ala. 511; ... Hudson v. State, 117 Ga. 704, 45 S.E. 66; State ... v. Thompson, 95 Iowa 464, 64 N.W. 419; Bateman v ... State, 64 Miss. 233, 1 So. 172; People v ... Tower, 17 N.Y.S. 395; State v. Greene, 66 Iowa ... 11, 23 N.W. 154; Avery v. People, 11 Ill.App. 332; ... see, also, cases cited by our learned Commissioner.] ... For ... these reasons then, in addition to those so ... ...
-
State v. O'Kelley
... ... But [173 ... Mo.App. 183] counsel did not show wherein his client had been ... deprived of a single substantial right in the trial of this ... cause, and the testimony overwhelmingly proved that the ... appellant was guilty." [See also Bateman v ... State, 1 So. 172, 64 Miss. 233.] ... In ... considering this question some force should also be given to ... the rule that the same strictness is not required in trials ... for misdemeanors as in trials for felonies, and what may ... constitute reversible error in ... ...
-
Church v. State
... ... appellant's contention would be maintainable. However, we ... think that this character of testimony was admissible in this ... case as going to show a motive on the part of appellant to ... rid herself of her husband ... Sauer ... v. State, 166 Miss. 517, 144 So. 225; Bateman v ... State, 64 Miss. 233, I So. 172; Mooreman v ... State, 109 Miss. 848, 69 So. 1000; Ouidas v. State, 78 ... Miss. 622, 29 So. 525 ... We ... submit that the argument was neither directly nor indirectly ... a comment on the failure of the accused to testify ... ...