Coleman v. State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1945
• Docket Number: 35736.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: COLEMAN v. STATE.

22 So.2d 410

COLEMAN v. STATE.

No. 35736.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 11, 1945

H C. Stringer, of Jackson, for appellant.

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

L. A SMITH, Sr., Justice.

The appellant, Ora Lee Coleman, was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Copiah County for assault and battery with intent to kill and murder Malvola Sinclair. From this judgment she appeals here. She assigns as errors the granting of an instruction to the State and the refusing of an instruction to her, and also that the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court were contrary to the law and believable testimony in the case.

It is not necessary to state the facts in the case or to discuss them, except to say that the verdict of the jury was found on conflicting testimony and by their verdict the jury adopted the testimony offered by the State and rejected that offered by the appellant here, defendant there. Under such circumstances, a verdict on appeal is conclusive and will not be disturbed by the appellate court. Steward v State, 154 Miss. 858, 123 So. 891.

Appellant complains that the following instruction was granted to the State: 'The Court instructs the jury for the State that to make an assault with a deadly weapon justifiable on the ground of self defense, the danger to the defendant must be either actual, present and urgent, or the defendant must have reasonable grounds to apprehend a design on the part of the assaulted party to kill her or to do her some great bodily harm, and in addition to this that there was imminent danger of such design being accomplished, and hence mere fear, apprehension, or belief, however sincerely entertained by one person that another designs to take her life, or to do her some great bodily harm, will not justify the former in so assaulting or shooting the latter party. A party may have a lively apprehension that her life is in danger and believe the grounds of her apprehension just and reasonable, and yet she acts at her peril, she is not the final judge, the jury may determine the reasonableness of the grounds upon which she acted.' This instruction has been approved in the criminal jurisprudence of this State ever since Wesley v. State, 37 Miss. 327, 75 Am.Dec. 62, and as late as Ransom et al. v. State, 149 Miss. 262, 115 So. 208. This instruction, with identical language, was approved in the latest case dealing with it, Callas v. State, 151 Miss. 617, 118 So. 447. The Court committed...