Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 28 May 1906
• Citation: 40 So. 1009,87 Miss. 800
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: LEORA BROWN v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

40 So. 1009

87 Miss. 800

LEORA BROWN v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 28, 1906

November 1905

FROM the circuit court of Quitman county, HON. SAMUEL C. COOK Judge.

Brown the appellant, was indicted and tried for and convicted of murder, and appealed to the supreme court.

A dispute arose between the mother of appellant and the wife of deceased, in which dispute deceased took little or no part and which ended in the appellant's mother, Maria Brown calling to appellant to bring a gun. Appellant obeyed, and the trouble ended for the time being. About half an hour later a quarrel occurred between Maria Brown and the small stepdaughter of Armistead Fairley, the deceased, which resulted in a fight, in which deceased interceded in behalf of his stepdaughter. The evidence is conflicting as to just what Armistead Fairley, the deceased, did, but while deceased was attempting to separate the combatants the appellant rushed up and shot him with the shotgun.

Judgment affirmed.

M. E. Denton, for appellant.

The trial court erred in admitting testimony for the state showing an altercation between the mother of appellant and the wife of deceased, previous to the difficulty which resulted in the killing with which appellant is charged, and that during this altercation appellant brought a shotgun to the fence around the yard of deceased and made a demonstration with it against the members of his family. This testimony amounted to proof of a previous difficulty, with which deceased was not connected and which had no connection whatever with and showed no motive for the killing. It proved an entirely separate and distinct offense, for which appellant might have been separately indicted and tried. In criminal cases--especially and particularly where the testimony is in sharp conflict, as in this case--such testimony should be rigidly rejected. Foster v. State, 70 Miss. 755; Hale v. State, 72 Miss. 140; Herman v. State, 75 Miss. 340; Raines v. State, 81 Miss. 489, and authorities cited in opinion on p. 497; Cotton v. State (Miss.), 17 South. Rep., 372; Whitlock v. State (Miss.), 6 So. 237; Kearney v. State, 68 Miss. 233; Brown v. State, 72 Miss. 997. And for a very long list of authorities, see the annotations to People v. Molineaux, 62 L. R. A., 193.

The rule against admitting evidence of previous difficulties is especially applicable where the previous difficulty is with a third person. Mabray v. State, 71 Miss. 716; 21 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 219, and authorities cited in note 4.

Whether or not this altercation and exhibition of a deadly weapon amounted to a previous difficulty or to a separate crime, the admission of evidence relating thereto was sufficient to prejudice appellant in the minds of the jury and to impress them that she held "sentiments which should not be tolerated," and the case should still be reversed. Holt v. State, 78 Miss. 631.

The cases of Story v. State, 68 Miss. 609; Webb v. State, 73 Miss. 456; and Ouidas v. State, 78 Miss. 622, do not apply here, for the reason that the bringing of the shotgun by appellant to the yard of deceased showed no motive for the killing which subsequently occurred.

R. V. Fletcher, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.

It is earnestly insisted by appellant that the case should be reversed because of...