Collins v. State
| Decision Date | 13 March 1911 |
| Docket Number | 14,939 |
| Citation | 54 So. 665,99 Miss. 47 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | THELMA COLLINS v. STATE |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Jones county, HON. PAUL B. JOHNSON Judge.
Thelma Collins was convicted of unlawful retailing and appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
Bullard & Gavin, for appellant.
Search I think, will hardly disclose a more glaringly oppressive deprivation of one's right to a fair and impartial trial. She was arrested late in the forenoon of the 10th day of October and then informed for the first time of the indictment. She at once had subpoenas issued for her witnesses, the only ones by whom she could establish her defense, and the sheriff had scarcely had time to get out of the court house with them before the case was called for trial. These witnesses, if she had been afforded an opportunity to have them present, would have made out a perfect defense. One of them, Bill Hinton, would have sworn that he was present at the time Chas. Jacobs and Jack Welborne, the state's witnesses, claimed she sold whiskey, and that she sold none. The other J. A. Shed, is her landlord, and would have sworn that she was not living at the place where the state's witnesses testified the person was living when they bought the whiskey. This at least would have proved that if they bought whiskey from any one they were mistaken in the identity of the person who sold it. A more perfect defense could hardly be imagined, and yet the court denied her any time whatever to establish it, saying "I am going to try the case to-day, if it takes till midnight." He did indeed call the jurors to the box who had heard him browbeat her and insinuate improper motives for the presence of Bill Hinton at her house, and went through the form of convicting her, but it was no trial. If indeed it be called a trial, section 26 of the Constitution is a mockery. And this too immediately after the court had compelled her to take the stand and violate her right under said section not to give evidence against herself in the presence and hearing of the very jurors who tried her.
And compelled her to answer when it could serve no purpose other than to prejudice the jurors against her defense, and force her to give up perhaps the only reason she might have had to remain silent at her trial. All this too after the court had before the same jurors browbeat her and by his manner and questions insinuated improper motives for the presence of Bill Hinton at her house.
And all this was without any bearing on her application for a continuance and was heard by the jurors who also immediately heard him say, "I am going to try the case to-day, if it takes till midnight."
We most earnestly insist that if Bill Hinton is a white man and she is "a nigger" she was entitled to fair treatment and a fair and impartial trial.
We think it unnecessary to cite authority but out of the multitude of others with which the court is familiar, the following are especially in point:
Section 26, article 3 of the Constitution, wherein it is said: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a right . . . to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" and a fair trial. She was denied the right to have an opportunity to have even one subpoena served and returned. Cade v. State, 50 So. 554, is a much stronger case than this and is exactly in point;
Montgomery v. State, 85 Miss. 330; Whitt v. State, 85 Miss. 208; Hattox v. State, 80 Miss. 186; Fooshee v. State, 82 Miss. 509; Leroy White v. State, 45 So. 611.
Jas. R. McDowell, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
The only other error assigned is that she was not tried by a fair jury because the members of this jury had heard her testimony taken on the motion for a new trial. There is nothing in this point at all, and I will only cite the case of Whitehead v. State, 52 So. 259, which should settle the point raised by counsel here.
The appellant, Thelma Collins, was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, and appeals to this court.
The appellant made an application for a continuance on account of the absence of two witnesses. When this application came up for hearing, the court called the appellant to the witness stand, and had her sworn, and examined her. The examination by the court took place in the presence of the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hull v. State
...asks this Court to hold that these statements constitute reversible error. Cone v. State, 271 So.2d 453 (Miss.1973); see Collins v. State, 99 Miss. 47, 54 So. 665 (1911). This Court notes that the trial court's statements were not contemporaneously objected to. We find the defendant's failu......
-
Edlin v. State
...the error complained of here is presumptively prejudicial; indeed some cases hold the presumption to be irrebuttable. In Collins v. State, 99 Miss. 47, 54 So. 665 (1910), we addressed the issue of a tainted jury and All the authorities hold that, if they [the jurors] were exposed to imprope......
-
Nelson v. State
...records, which might disparage this defense in the eyes of the jury to the great prejudice of the defendant on the trial. Collins v. State, 99 Miss. 47, 54 So. 665; Leverett v. State, 112 Miss. 394, 73 So. The whole trend of the voir dire examination was to influence the proposed jurors aga......
-
Cole v. State
... ... 802] that ... paranoia was the only form of insanity he would recognize, ... was highly prejudicial to the rights of the appellant ... 21 ... Ency. Pl. & Pr., page 994; Green v. State, 97 Miss ... 834; Montgomery v. State, 85 Miss. 330; Collins ... v. State, 99 Miss. 47; Nelson v. State, 129 ... Miss. 288; 21 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 995; Cross v. Ryrone, Min., ... etc., Co., 121 Pa. St. 387 ... It is a ... well settled principle of law that an instruction is ... erroneous in Mississippi, which is upon the weight of the ... ...