Blackwell v. State, 37470
| Decision Date | 13 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 37470,37470 |
| Parties | BLACKWELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
W. U. Corley, Collins, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Attorney General, Geo. H. Ethridge, Jackson, for appellee.
The appellant, L. C. Blackwell, who was convicted of manslaughter for the killing of Ella Graves, has assigned as errors: (1) the refusal of the trial court to direct the jury to find him not guilty, because of the insufficiency of the evidence; (2) the failure to grant him a new trial on the alleged ground that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence; and (3) the exclusion of the testimony of certain witnesses offered to show that shortly after the killing the accused told them how it occurred, and in such a manner as to exonerate himself of blame, the court having held that such statements of the accused to these other persons were incompetent as being self-serving declarations in an attempt to justify the homicide.
Responding to the two alleged errors first above assigned, we are of the opinion that the evidence was ample to create an issue of fact for the determination of the jury as to whether the accused used more force than reasonably appeared to him to be necessary to save his life or protect himself from great bodily harm when he shot Ella Graves, his mother-in-law, at a time when she is alleged to have been advancing toward him with a knife while he was in one room and she was in another. In the case of Cook v. State, 194 Miss. 467, 12 So.2d 137, 138, the Court held: 'One repelling such an assault with a deadly weapon acts always at his peril and whether he was justified in the use of such a weapon is always a question of fact, and is for the determination of the jury, unless no reasonable inference appears from the evidence except that the use of the weapon reasonably appeared to the person assaulted to be apparently necessary for his protection from death or great bodily harm at the hands of his assailant.' And, we do not think that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence on this sole issue of fact.
As to the third ground of error assigned, the ruling of the court was correct and proper. The only self-serving statements of the accused that were admissible in evidence were allowed to be introduced by him as part of the conversation had with the sheriff in the nature of a confession, and which were not recalled by the sheriff in his testimony but were recalled and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671 (Miss.1990) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). The following language found in Blackwell v. State, 44 So.2d 409, 410 (Miss.1950) supports this It is now well settled that when anything transpires during the trial that would tend to prejudice the right......
-
Manning v. State
...the same is of such nature as would entitle him to a mistrial. Ratliff v. State, 313 So.2d 386, 388 (Miss.1975)(quoting Blackwell v. State, 44 So.2d 409, 410 (Miss.1950)). ¶ 64. We have held, that where a trial judge's remarks amount to a comment on the evidence, reversal is warranted. In W......
-
Cowart v. State
...a mistrial upon the happening of such occurrence when the same is of such a nature as would entitle him to a mistrial.Blackwell v. State, 44 So.2d 409, 410 (Miss.1950) (emphasis added); Williams, 684 So.2d at 1203. Requiring contemporaneous objections to the final result of a proceeding, su......
-
McGarrh v. State
...taken advantage of it by a motion for a mistrial. However, he did not do this--he did not make a motion for a mistrial. In Blackwell v. State, 44 So.2d 409 (Miss.), the Court stated the rule to be as follows: 'It is now well settled that when anything transpires during the trial that would ......