Carter v. State

• Citation: 99 Miss. 435,54 So. 734
• Decision Date: 03 April 1911
• Docket Number: 15,007
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Parties: JOHN T. CARTER v. STATE

54 So. 734

99 Miss. 435

JOHN T. CARTER v. STATE

No. 15,007

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 3, 1911

APPEAL from the circuit court of Monroe county, HON. JNO. H MITCHELL, Judge.

John T Carter was charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter and appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Geo. T Mitchell and E. O. Sykes, Sr., for appellant.

R. N. Miller and Jas. R. McDowell, assistant attorney-general, for state.

No brief of either counsel found in the record.

Argued orally by E. O. Sykes and Geo. T. Mitchell, for appellant and R. N. Miller and Jas. R. McDowell, assistant attorney-general, for state.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

Appellant was indicted for murder, convicted of manslaughter, and appeals to this court.

When this cause was under investigation by the grand jury, the district attorney had the evidence taken down by a stenographer, introduced by him into the grand jury room for that purpose. A motion to quash, setting up this fact, was filed by the appellant, and by the court overruled. The stenographer's notes were transcribed, and the district attorney and private counsel, employed to assist him, were each given a copy thereof; but, acting upon the instruction of the district attorney, the stenographer declined to give a copy to counsel for appellant. All that this stenographer did, while in the grand jury room, was to take down the evidence, and this evidence was not discussed or commented upon in his presence by any member of the grand jury.

The introduction of this stenographer into the grand jury room was without authority of law; but, since it is manifest that appellant could not have been prejudiced thereby, he cannot be heard to complain thereof. In all of the cases wherein this court has reversed the judgment of the lower court overruling motions of this character, it appeared that the unauthorized person was introduced into the grand jury room for the purpose of aiding, in some way, in procuring the finding of the bill of indictment. It is to be hoped, however, that prosecuting attorneys will abstain from indulging in experiments of this character; for cases may easily arise wherein the court cannot say that the defendant could not have been prejudiced thereby; and, unless the court can so say, the indictment must be quashed, for in that event the court will not inquire into whether or not the defendant was in fact prejudiced.

Before entering upon the trial, appellant requested the court to clear the courtroom of all persons, except court officials jurors, parties, and witnesses, etc., as provided in section 26 of our state Constitution, which request was by the court denied. The discretion vested in the court by this section of the Constitution is in the interest of public morals. It abridges, instead of...