Blevins v. State

• Decision Date: 16 April 1934
• Docket Number: 30839
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BLEVINS v. STATE

154 So. 269

169 Miss. 868

BLEVINS v. STATE

No. 30839

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 16, 1934

Division B

1. CRIMINAL LAW. In homicide prosecution, refusal of continuance

to succeeding term because of witnesses temporarily absent from state held not error where defendant failed to show required diligence.

Motion for continuance was supported by affidavit showing that defendant had used diligence to procure attendance of witnesses temporarily absent from state at term then in progress, but defendant failed to show that during trial he continued to use process of court with unremitting efforts and that after conviction he persisted in his efforts to force attendance of witnesses before expiration of term. Defendant also failed to present witnesses to court for examination on motion for new trial, or to secure their ex parte affidavits showing materiality of their testimony, if practicable and if witnesses were not available.

2. CRIMINAL LAW.

Modification of requested instruction that every juror must vote for acquittal "on each and every ballot of the jury" unless convinced beyond all reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt and that no juror should surrender his conviction if it should remain after consultation with his fellow jurors, by omitting quoted words and adding that consultation must have been "full and free" held not error.

3. CRIMINAL LAW.

Refusal to admit affidavit as part of testimony of state's witness who testified that he did not know contents of affidavit which contained his admission that he swore falsely in first trial, but admitting such affidavit through testimony of defense witness who testified on direct examination that he secured affidavit to procure defendant's pardon for conviction of manslaughter on first trial held not prejudicial to defendant.

4 HOMICIDE.

Defendant cannot complain of instruction authorizing his conviction of manslaughter on evidence which was sufficient to convict him of murder.

5. CRIMINAL LAW.

New trial for newly discovered evidence to impeach that of state's witness, and set out in affidavit sworn to by defendant but not by his attorneys held properly refused.

6. CRIMINAL LAW.

Newly discovered impeaching evidence is not ground for new trial.

HON. J I. STURDIVANT, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Clay county HON. J. I. STURDIVANT, Judge.

Willie Blevins was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Roberds & Malone, of West Point, for appellant.

The court erred in overruling the motion of defendant for continuance of the case.

The court below erred in refusing defendant the following instruction: "The court charges the jury for the defendant that it is the sworn duty of every juror to vote on each and every ballot of the jury for an acquittal of the defendant until and unless after conferring with his fellow jurors, the mind of such jurors is convinced beyond all reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty from the evidence of the guilt of the defendant, and that a juror under his oath as a juror cannot compromise his honest convictions from the evidence as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant for the purpose of bringing in a verdict, but that under his oath and under the law a juror should never surrender such conviction from or because of anything or reason whatsoever or for any purpose whatsoever so long as his conviction after consultation with his fellow jurors remains."

Speaks v. State, 136 So. 921; Cartee v. State, 139 So. 618; Millette v. State, 148 So. 788.

The lower court erred in refusing to permit the introduction of the affidavit of Howard Cook when first offered by the defense. He had executed an affidavit admitting his testimony as formerly given was false. The affidavit was admissible and the credibility of the witness was a matter for the jury.

Defendant was convicted of a crime, which, under the facts here, contained not an element of the crime. He was guilty of murder or nothing.

Walker v. State, 123 Miss. 517, 91 So. 417; Rester v. State, 110 Miss. 689, 70 So. 881.

The motion for new trial should have been sustained.

Campbell v. State, 123 Miss. 713, 86 So. 513.

Wm. H. Maynard, Special Agent, for the state.

The court did not err in overruling the motion of appellant for a continuance of the case.

Wade v. State, 132 So. 560; Samuels v. State, 153 Miss. 381, 120 So. 920; Wells v. State, 18 So. 117; Helm v. State, 67 Miss. 562, 7 So. 487; Trim v. State, 33 So. 718; Moore v. State, 144 Miss. 649, 110 So. 216.

In the second assignment of error, the statement is made that "The defendant asked, and was refused, this instruction;" with the instruction thereafter set out. We call the court's attention to the fact that this statement in appellant's brief is misleading, for the reason that, although the court did refuse the instruction in the exact language as set out in appellant's brief, the court offered to grant the instruction, as modified by the court.

The only modification of this instruction, which was made by the court was the striking of the letters in the first part of the instruction "on each and every ballot of the jury" and in the latter part of the instruction, the addition between the words "whatsoever so long as his conviction" and "with his fellow jurors, remains" of the words "after full and free consultation."

The instruction, as modified by the court, fully expresses the law as laid down in Cartee v. State, 139 So. 618, and Millette v. State, 148 So. 788.

The court is not bound to give instructions exactly in the requested words if the instruction given is correct and complete.

Matthews v. State, 108 Miss. 72, 66 So. 325.

The lower court did not err in refusing to permit the introduction of the affidavit of Howard Cook when first offered by the defense.

It is now the law in the state of Mississippi, according to our construction, that it is not error for the court to grant a manslaughter instruction, where the testimony either discloses a murder or innocence of the defendant.

Goss v. State, 144 Miss. 420, 110 So. 208; Alexander v. State, 145 Miss. 675, 110 So. 367; Blalock v. State, 148 Miss. 1, 113 So. 627; Samuels v. State, 153 Miss. 381, 120 So. 920; Calicoat v. State, 95 So. 318, 131 Miss. 169; Strickland v. State, 131 Miss. 169, 95 So. 318; Triplett v. State, 132 So. 448.

A new trial for newly discovered evidence, merely impeaching or discrediting adverse witness held properly refused.

Steward v. State, 154 Miss. 858, 123 So. 891; Williamson v. State, 149 So. 795.

OPINION

Anderson, J.

Appellant was indicted for the murder of one John Montgomery; convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of five years. From that judgment he prosecutes this appeal.

This was the second trial of the case. There was a negro dance going on at night in a dance hall in the city of West Point; the attendants at the dance, including appellant and the deceased, were all negroes. A fee of admittance to the dance hall was required to be paid, and John Montgomery was the doorkeeper. It was his duty as such to require all comers to pay the fee before being admitted. Appellant and others came into the hall without paying the fee and were evicted by Montgomery; later some one threw a brick against the door of the dance hall, Montgomery opened the door, then another brick was thrown which struck him over the eye, fracturing his skull. He developed tetanus from the wound and died.

The issue of fact was, who threw the brick that caused the wound. The evidence was conflicting.

Claud Hudson and Howard Cook were the principal state's witnesses. They testified that they saw appellant throw the brick that struck Montgomery.

The court refused to continue the case on motion of appellant supported by affidavit, and this action of the court is assigned and argued as error. On the former trial of the case, Will Young, Isaiah Shields, and John Erskine Wells testified that appellant did not throw the brick which struck Montgomery; that at the time they were talking to appellant under a bright street light about sixty feet away from the dance hall door, and knew that he did not throw the brick. Only one of these witnesses was present at the last trial. Roosevelt Murray testified on the former trial that the state's witness Hudson, at the time Montgomery was struck with the brick, was in a house about seventy-five yards away engaged in a crap game and could not have seen who threw the brick. The motion for continuance was based on the absence of Will Young and Roosevelt Murray. In the affidavit it was stated that the absent witnesses would testify to the same effect on another trial; that they resided in West Point, the county seat of Clay county where the trial was being held; that they were temporarily absent from the state; that subpoenas had issued for them, but they were not found on account of being out of the state; that appellant believed that their presence could be procured at the next term of court; and that he had used due diligence to procure their attendance at the term then in progress.

The action of the court in refusing the continuance was made a ground for motion for a new trial, which motion was overruled. There was no error in denying the continuance and overruling the motion for a new trial based on that ground. Appellant failed to show the required diligence. During the trial he should have,...