Brister v. State, 40609
| Decision Date | 28 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 40609,40609 |
| Parties | Zebedee BRISTER v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
McClaren, Dixon & McMillan, McComb, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by J. R. Griffin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted and tried for murder, and convicted of manslaughter. He contends that his constitutional right to be present during every material and important step in his trial was denied in that he was not present when the judge and the attorneys retired to an anteroom to challenge the jurors.
Upon the case being called, the parties announced ready for trial, and appellant, who was on bond, was called forward and took his seat within the bar in a chair designated by his counsel. Appellant kept his seat in the presence of the court and jury while the entire special venire was examined on voir dire, after which the judge and all the attorneys retired to an anteroom, across a hall from the courtroom, where the attorneys exercised their challenges resulting in the final selection of the jurors. Appellant did not go into the anteroom with the judge and the attorneys. No one told him to do so and no one told him not to do so. His attorneys did not think about it at all until twelve jurors had been selected, after which they made a motion for a mistrial. After the motion was overruled, appellant went to the room and was present when the thirteenth (alternate) juror was selected. There is no showing whatever that appellant was in any way prejudiced by not being present when the challenges were exercised, or that he did not have all the opportunity he or his attorneys desired to confer after completion of the voir dire and before the jurors were challenged. It also appears that appellant sat in the courtroom in the presence of the prospective jurors while the challenges were being exercised in the anteroom.
Since the absence of appellant from the anteroom was voluntary, the right to be present during that particular phase of the trial was waived. Sec. 2519, Mississippi Code of 1942; Williams v. State, 103 Miss. 147, 60 So. 73; Thomas v. State, 117 Miss. 532, 78 So. 147; Ford v. State, 170 Miss. 459, 155 So. 220; Hamburg v. State, 203 Miss. 565, 35 So.2d 324; Sims v. State, 209 Miss. 545, 47 So.2d 849. The cases of Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774, 47 So. 554, 20 L.R.A., N.S., 509; Warfield v. State, 96 Miss. 170, 50 So. 561, and Watkins v. State, 110 Miss. 438, 70 So. 457, were overruled by Ford v. State, supra.
The judge observed that the defendant did not go to the anteroom and did not consider it necessary to require him to do so. No prejudice was alleged or shown. It appears that appellant received a fair and impartial trial. The voluntary absence of appellant from the anteroom when the jurors were challenged did not constitute reversible error.
Appellant requested the following instruction:
'If the evidence shows that the deceased was a much larger and stronger man than the defendant, and was capable of inflicting great and serious bodily harm upon the defendant with his hands and a bottle, or either, and that the defendant had reason to believe and did believe as a man of ordinary reason that he was then and there in danger of such harm at the hands of the deceased, and used his knife, with which he fatally cut the deceased, to protect himself from such harm, then the defendant was ustified, and your verdict will be 'not guilty', even though the deceased was not armed.'
The court refused the instruction as requested, but added the following notation thereon: 'If this instruction had begun 'The court instructs the jury for the defendant that if you believe from the evidence that the deceased was a much larger and stronger man,' etc.--the instruction would have been given.'
The appellant elected to stand on the instruction as requested and did not accept the suggested modification.
According to the State's theory, appellant stabbed deceased without justification, and the testimony for the State sustained this theory. Appellant's theory was that he acted in self defense when he fatally stabbed deceased, and he offered proof to sustain his claim of self defense. The testimony of the witnesses for the State and the defendant was that deceased was 24 years old, weighing from 15 to 190 pounds, and a stronger man than appellant, who was 31 years old, weighing 142 pounds. One of the State's witnesses stated that the deceased weighed about 180 pounds and that 'he wasn't so much bigger (than appellant), but he was taller.'
The instruction as requested was properly refused. It is not what the evidence shows...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokes v. State, 41694
...necessary nor desirable from any standpoint in the absence of the appellant. Per se this is not prejudicial. In Brister v. State, 231 Miss. 722, 728, 97 So.2d 654, 655, the Court 'Since the absence of appellant from the anteroom was voluntary, the right to be present during that particular ......
-
People v. Bowman
...v. Sumeracki (1950), 326 Mich. 748, 40 N.W.2d 790; People v. O'Keefe (1953), 281 App.Div. 409, 120 N.Y.S.2d 349; Brister v. State (1957), 231 Miss. 722, 97 So.2d 654. The conviction of defendant is therefore 1 M.C.L.A. § 750.316 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.548).2 M.C.L.A. § 768.3 (Stat.Ann.195......
-
State v. Carver
...284 F.2d 393 (6th Cir. 1960), expressly or impliedly waived by the defendants themselves, State v. McGinnis, supra, Brister v. State, 231 Miss. 722, 97 So.2d 654 (Miss.1957), and see Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), subsequently ratified by defendants, S......
-
Myers v. State, 46626
...trial progress, at the discretion of the court, in his absence, if he be in custody and consenting thereto. In Brister v. State, 231 Miss. 722, 725-726, 97 So.2d 654, 655 (1957), the Court Appellant did not go into the anteroom with the judge and the attorneys. No one told him to do so and ......