Bridges v. State, 35671.

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
Citation19 So.2d 738,197 Miss. 527
Docket Number35671.
PartiesBRIDGES v. STATE.
Decision Date13 November 1944

19 So.2d 738

197 Miss. 527

BRIDGES
v.
STATE.

No. 35671.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 13, 1944


Martin & Farr, of Prentiss, for appellant.

Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and R. O. Arrington, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of an assault with intent to murder. We need not recount the testimony since it completely justifies the verdict.

The following instruction was given for the State: "The court instructs the jury for the State that malice is implied by law from the nature and character of the weapon used and that the use of the deadly weapon in a difficulty and not necessarily in self defense is in law evidence of malice."

The errors in this instruction are seen at a glance. When the entire case is before the jury there is no need nor right to charge them upon a presumption. Walker v. State, 146 Miss. 510, 112 So. 673; New Orleans & G. N. R. Co. v. Walden, 160 Miss. 102, 133 So. 241; Winchester v. State, 163 Miss. 462, 471, 142 So. 454; A.L.I. Model Code of Evidence, Rule 704, Comment (b). Moreover, the instruction is not that the jury may infer malice but that malice is in law implied. The fact that the weapon used is deadly is found peremptorily by the court. And above all the failure to characterize the use of the weapon as "deliberate" is fatal. Winchester v. State, supra.

In a case where guilt is less patent such error would require reversal. However, the evidence is overwhelming that the assault was unprovoked and wholly unjustified and no impartial jury with capacity to think and courage to act could reasonably find otherwise. The record itself discloses that the assault was made with a deadly weapon with a deliberate and expressed intent to kill and murder. Sullivan v. State, 92 Miss. 828, 46 So. 248; Wesley v. State, 37 Miss. 327, 75 Am.Dec. 62.

Error is predicated of the failure of the instructions for the state to define the term "murder" used therein. The need for explanation of technical legal terms is discussed in Martin v. State, 163 Miss. 454, 142 So. 15 (which makes pertinent the strong dissent in Canterbury v. State, 90 Miss. 279, 301, 43 So. 467). If such omission be error, which we do not decide, it is not available to appellant whose instructions follow the language used by the state [19 So.2d 739.] and some of which define murder in the language of the statute. An instruction sought by appellant completely defined the offense and was allowed by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Tran v. State, No. 92-KA-01058-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 22, 1996
    ...824 (1955); Tullos v. State, 222 Miss. 90, 75 So.2d 257 (1954); Smith v. State, 205 Miss. 283, 38 So.2d 725 (1949); Bridges v. State, 197 Miss. 527, 19 So.2d 738 (1944); Busby v. State, 177 Miss. 68, 170 So. 140 (1936); Batiste v. State, 165 Miss. 161, 147 So. 318 (1933); Winchester v. Stat......
  • Shields v. State, No. 42239
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 1, 1962
    ...Miss. 68, 170 So. 140; Walker v. State, 146 Miss. 510, 112 So. 673; Winchester v. State, 163 Miss. 462, 142 So. 454; Bridges v. State, 197 Miss. 527, 19 So.2d 738; Smith v. State, 161 Miss. 430, 137 So. 96, 97; Smith v. State, 205 Miss. 283, 38 So.2d 725; Tullos v. State, 222 Miss. Page 789......
  • Carter v. State, No. 55659
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • July 30, 1986
    ...824 (1955); Tullos v. State, 222 Miss. 90, 75 So.2d 257 (1954); Smith v. State, 205 Miss. 283, 38 So.2d 725 (1949); Bridges v. State, 197 Miss. 527, 19 So.2d 738 (1944); Busby v. State, 177 Miss. 68, 170 So. 140 (1936); Batiste v. State, 165 Miss. 161, 147 So. 318 (1933); Winchester v. Stat......
  • Wood v. State, No. 48777
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 3, 1975
    ...of fact. Dickins v. State, 208 Miss. 69, 43 So.2d 366 (1949); Hughes v. State, 207 Miss. 594, 42 So.2d 805 (1949); Bridges v. State, 197 Miss. 527, 19 So.2d 738 In the instant case, however, no explanation or evidence was offered indicating how the contraband came into the appellant's apart......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Tran v. State, No. 92-KA-01058-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 22, 1996
    ...824 (1955); Tullos v. State, 222 Miss. 90, 75 So.2d 257 (1954); Smith v. State, 205 Miss. 283, 38 So.2d 725 (1949); Bridges v. State, 197 Miss. 527, 19 So.2d 738 (1944); Busby v. State, 177 Miss. 68, 170 So. 140 (1936); Batiste v. State, 165 Miss. 161, 147 So. 318 (1933); Winchester v. Stat......
  • Shields v. State, No. 42239
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 1, 1962
    ...Miss. 68, 170 So. 140; Walker v. State, 146 Miss. 510, 112 So. 673; Winchester v. State, 163 Miss. 462, 142 So. 454; Bridges v. State, 197 Miss. 527, 19 So.2d 738; Smith v. State, 161 Miss. 430, 137 So. 96, 97; Smith v. State, 205 Miss. 283, 38 So.2d 725; Tullos v. State, 222 Miss. Page 789......
  • Carter v. State, No. 55659
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • July 30, 1986
    ...824 (1955); Tullos v. State, 222 Miss. 90, 75 So.2d 257 (1954); Smith v. State, 205 Miss. 283, 38 So.2d 725 (1949); Bridges v. State, 197 Miss. 527, 19 So.2d 738 (1944); Busby v. State, 177 Miss. 68, 170 So. 140 (1936); Batiste v. State, 165 Miss. 161, 147 So. 318 (1933); Winchester v. Stat......
  • Wood v. State, No. 48777
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 3, 1975
    ...of fact. Dickins v. State, 208 Miss. 69, 43 So.2d 366 (1949); Hughes v. State, 207 Miss. 594, 42 So.2d 805 (1949); Bridges v. State, 197 Miss. 527, 19 So.2d 738 In the instant case, however, no explanation or evidence was offered indicating how the contraband came into the appellant's apart......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT