Chatman v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1912 |
| Citation | 102 Miss. 179,59 So. 8 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MISSIE CHATMAN v. STATE |
March 1912
APPEAL from the circuit court of Lamar county, HON. A. E WEATHERSBY, Judge.
Missie Chatman was convicted of unlawful retailing and appeals.
The appellant was indicted and convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. On appeal she assigns as an error the granting of the second instruction asked by the state, which is as follows: "The court charges the jury, for the state, that you are the sole judge of the weight and worth of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, and in determining what credence to be given to the testimony of any witness or witnesses you may take into consideration his opportunity to see and know the matter about which he is testifying, his or their interest in the subject-matter, if any, and interest, if any, in the result of the trial, and their conduct on the witness stand, and if, from the whole evidence, in the case, you believe any single witness has willfully and corruptly sworn falsely with reference to any material matter, the jury may disbelieve the testimony of such witness altogether in making up your verdict."
Reversed and remanded.
W. S Price, for appellant.
Instruction number two for the state is in the following words, to-wit "The court charges the jury for the state that you are the sole judges of the weight and worth of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses and in determining what credence to give to the testimony of any witness or witnesses, you may take into consideration his opportunity to see and know the matter about which he is testifying, his or their interest in the subject-matter, if any, and the interest, if any, in the result of the trial and their conduct on the witness stand, and if from the whole evidence in the case you believe any single witness has wilfully and corruptly sworn falsely with reference to any material matter, the jury may disbelieve the testimony of such witness altogether in making up your verdict." In view of the fact that the appellant was the only witness offered by the defendant in the court below, this instruction was improperly given--and in my mind constitutes reversible error. See Gaines v. State, 48 So. 182 and authorities therein cited.
The court certainly erred in permitting the state to ask the defendant while on the witness stand testifying in her own behalf the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackwell v. State
... ... 705; Woods v. State, 7 So. 495, ... 67 Miss. 575; Glenn v. State, 2 So. 109; Brown ... v. State, 23 So. 422; Townsend v. State, 12 So ... 209; McEwen v. State, 16 So. 242; Rucker v ... State, 18 So. 121; Smith v. State, 43 So. 465; ... Gaines v. State, 48 So. 182; Chatman v ... State, 59 So. 8; Jones v. State, 122 So. 760 ... All of ... the above cases cited refer to an instruction granted by the ... trial court upon which error was based, and none of the cases ... have reference to a misstatement of the law of the case by ... the district attorney ... ...
-
Reed v. State, 41175
...State, Miss.1892, 12 So. 209; Smith v. State, 1907, 90 Miss. 111, 43 So. 465; Gaines v. State, Miss. 1909, 48 So. 182; Chatman v. State, 1912, 102 Miss. 179, 59 So. 8; Pigott v. State, 1914, 107 Miss. 552, 65 So. 583; Jones v. State, 1929, 154 Miss. 640, 122 So. 760; Thompson v. State, 1930......
-
Callas v. State
...Buckley v. State, 62 Miss. 705; Smith v. State, 90 Miss. 111, 43 So. 465; Piggott v. State, 107 Miss. 552, 56 So. 583; Chatman v. State, 102 Miss. 179, 59 So. 8; Gaines State, 48 So. 182. The attorney-general will probably refer to the cases of Vails v. State, 48 So. 725, and Pool v. State,......
- Denton v. State