Collins v. State
| Decision Date | 13 March 1911 |
| Citation | 54 So. 666,99 Miss. 52 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | THELMA COLLINS v. STATE |
October 1910
APPEAL from the circuit court of Jones county, HON. PAUL B. JOHNSON Judge.
Thelma Collins was convicted of the illegal sale of liquors and appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
Bullard & Gavin, for appellant.
The district attorney in his argument referred to the house of the defendant as a low dive where whiskey and beer are kept where girls stayed and where men visited, and added "You know what the means." Means what? That it has any tendency to prove that she sold Charles Jacobson whiskey? He meant for the jury to infer just what he had said, that her home was a low dive, etc., and it was an invitation to them to convict her because as he said she was the keeper of a low dive, and we defy the district attorney to point to one syllable of the competent evidence that proves it, even if it had been a relevant inquiry. Surely a conviction will never be allowed to stand when secured by such passionate appeals as this.
But we apprehend that the most glaring error in the record is the remark of the court in reply to the defendant's exception to the argument of the district attorney. When the defendant objected the court said: "Very well, I think the evidence substantiates that." Substantiates what? Substantiates the statement that the defendant's home is a low dive where whiskey and beer are kept, where girls stayed and where men visited. If that evidence was improper the defendant's objections ought to have been sustained if not, the court ought to have left the jury freely to weigh it without expressing his conviction that it was proved, and if there is no evidence one way or the other, it is still worse for the court to say that a fact has been proved upon which there is no evidence. It seems to us that a bare statement of it is enough to show its impropriety. The defendant had burden enough to carry to the jury without being loaded down with the passionate appeal of the district attorney, endorsed by the court together with the statement that the evidence proves it. The books, as the court knows, contains numerous authorities in condemnation of such remarks by the court on the evidence, but the latest case in this state seems to be the case of Sivly v. Sivly, 51 So. R. 457.
Jas. R. McDowell, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
It is argued that the court erred in permitting the district attorney to refer to the home of appellant as a low dive where whiskey and beer were kept and girls stayed and men visited.
I submit, that the record sufficiently shows that the house was a low dive kept by a negro woman, where girls stayed and whiskey and beer were kept, and men visited, for it is in evidence that a great many of them did visit. Several witnesses admitted it themselves. It seems to have been the lowest kind of dive, and it could not have harmed the defendant to have it referred to as such when the record shows plainly that it was.
Likewise the remarks of the trial judge, when asked to reprimand the district attorney for using...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartfield v. State
...... . . Bozeman. v. State, 145 So. 165. . . Any. statement made by the prosecuting attorney which is highly. prejudicial to the defendant and not a part of the record is. reversible error. . . Seale. v. State, 153 So. 285; Collins v. State, 56 So. 527;. Sykes v. State, 42 So. 870. . . Under. the facts in this case this appellant was denied what the law. guarantees to him a fair and impartial trial by this action. of the prosecuting attorney and the statement of the court. . . Articles. 5 and ......
-
Comings v. State
...... Miss. 697, 54 So. 154, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 257 (reversed for. comment by counsel alone); Long v. State, 81 Miss. 448, 33 So. 224; Middleton v. State, 80 Miss. 393,. 31 So. 809; Harris v. State, 96 Miss. 379, 50 So. 626; Hampton v. State, 88 Miss. 257, 40 So. 545, 117. Am. St. Rep. 740; Collins v. State, 99 Miss. 52, 54. So. 666; Smith v. State, 141 Miss. 772, 105 So. 758;. Matthews v. State, 148 Miss. 696, 114 So. 816;. Hill v. State, 118 Miss. 170, 79 So. 98; Darby. v. State, 121 Miss. 869, 84 So. 6; Hyatt on Trials, p. 1561, section 1474 et seq. . . I think. that the ......
-
McLeod v. State
...... this case should be reversed on account of such highly. improper remarks by said district attorney. Evans v. State, 98 Miss. 697, 54 So. 154; Sykes v. State, 89 Miss. 766, 42 So. 875; Long v. State, . 81 Miss. 448, 33 So. 224; Middleton v. State, 80. Miss. 393, 31 So. 809; Collins v. State, 99 Miss. 52, 54 So. 666. . . We also. submit that the court erred in limiting the argument of this. case to one hour on each side as shown by special bill of. exceptions shown on page 283 of the record. There were two. attorneys for the defendant in this case as shown ......
-
Parkinson v. State
...... liquors. . . It has. been held that more than one offense could not be introduced. under this section in a prosecution for the possession of. intoxicating liquors. Lowe v. State, 127. Miss. 340, 90 So. 78; Cage v. State, 105. Miss. 326, 62 So. 358; Collins v. State, 99. Miss. 52, 54 So. 666; Cook v. State, 81. Miss. 146, 32 So. 312; Smothers v. City of. Jackson, 92 Miss. 327, 45 So. 982. In King v. State, 66 Miss. 502, 6 So. 188, prior to the passage. of section 1762, Code of 1906, it was held that more than one. offense was inadmissible; that ......