Cooper v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Citation94 Miss. 480,49 So. 178
Decision Date03 May 1909
Docket Number13,750
PartiesWALTER COOPER v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

FROM the Circuit Court of Webster County, HON. GEORGE MCLEAN Judge.

Cooper appellant, was indicted and tried for the murder of one Hightower, convicted, sentenced to the penitentiary for life and appealed to the supreme court.

The opinion of the court states the facts.

Reversed and remanded.

Gould & McKeigney, for appellant.

It was a manifestly reversible error to permit Riley Cooper, father of and a most important witness for appellant, to be cross-examined as shown in the record. The witness had denied making the statement about which he was interrogated, and thereupon the state was permitted in rebuttal, over appellant's objections, to prove by a witness, Harrison, that Riley Cooper had made the statement in question. The testimony was incompetent, and its only effect was the attempting to impeach a most important witness for appellant, and to impeach him upon a matter entirely immaterial to the great issue of innocence or guilt of appellant involved. Williams v. State, 73 Miss. 320, 19 So. 826; Dunk v. State, 76 Miss. 515, 25. So. 363; Davis v. State, 37 So. 1018; Bell v. State, 38 So. 796.

Although the appellant had, through the testimony of the eye-witnesses of the difficulty, proved his innocence of the crime charged, he was made to assume the burden of disproving a statement placed before the jury through incompetent testimony. The statement was not anything which appellant himself said, but it was what another witness testifying for him, is alleged, by a third witness, to have said, it will be noted that the witness for appellant, Riley Cooper, denied the statement, and the state was allowed to place upon the witness-stand its witness, Harrison, to show, not what appellant said, but what Riley Cooper had said beyond the hearing of appellant and in appellant's absence.

If a trial court can permit a witness to be impeached upon collateral and immaterial matters, a cloud or suspicion is cast upon the testimony of such witness which cannot be sanctioned by law in criminal cases, since the weight of the testimony of such witness is thereby lessened in an improper and illegal matter. As stated by the court in Simms v. Forbes, 86 Miss. 412, 32 So. 546, "the rule against hearsay would be of but little value if it could be evaded by the transparent device of introducing it in contradiction of the adversary's witness upon collateral matters. Unless a party has the right to offer a conversation or statement directly, he cannot get it before the jury merely by way of contradicting a witness on matters brought out in cross examination."

Daniel & Adams on the same side.

It was error for the state to impeach the witness, Riley Cooper, by attempting to show that such witness made certain immaterial statements, after the witness had denied on cross-examination that he made such statement. This was a trial, not of Riley Cooper, the witness, but was a trial of the son, Walter Cooper, upon a capital charge. Every right of the appellant should have been carefully preserved by the court. The statement about which the witness was interrogated, was immaterial, collateral to the issue. The cases of Williams v. State, 73 Miss. 820, 19 So. 326, and Bell v. State, 33 So. 796, and other cases cited thereunder, show the error of the court below in respect to this. When we consider the fact that the witness, Riley Cooper, was, with the exception of appellant, the only eye witness to the whole difficulty, and that he was the principal and most material witness for appellant on the trial, and that he was also the father of appellant, it is evident how much weight the jury would naturally give to the testimony of such witness. If then his credibility was illegally attacked, the injury to appellant was most serious and, under the circumstances, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded. Garner v. State, 76 Miss. 515, 25 So. 363.

George Butler, assistant attorney...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • C. & R. Stores, Inc. v. Scarborough
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 10, 1940
    ...... . . Secs. 1380, 1531, Code of 1930; 10 U.S.C. A., p. 304, sec. 1530 and. p. 305, sec. 1531; Grenada Lbr. Co. v. State, 98. Miss. 536, 54 So. 8; Ducotte v. Adams, 101 Miss. 435, 58 So. 475; Helm v. State, 67 Miss. 562, 7 So. 487; Lewis v. State, 85 Miss. 35, 37 So. ...385;. Walker v. State, 151 Miss. 862, 119 So. 796;. Kennedy v. Aron (Miss.), 176 So. 127; Sumter. Lbr. Co. v. Hook (Miss.), 184 So. 70; Cooper v. State, 94 Miss. 484, 49 So. 178; 70 C. J., p. 719, par. 870, p. 804, par. 1010, p. 897, par. 1099; Word v. Sykes, 61 Miss. 649; Crisler v. ......
  • Lewis v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 31, 1938
  • Fisher v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 15, 1926
    ...Chism v. State, 70 Miss. 742, 12 So. 852; Garner v. State, 76 Miss. 515, 25 So. 363; Anderson v. State, 91 Miss. 407, 45 So. 359; Cooper v. State, 94 Miss. 480; Hitchcock Moore, 14 A. S. R. 481; Jones v. State, 16 Ala. 154, 74 Sol. 830; Simms v. State, 86 Miss. 412, 32 So. 546; Slaydon v. S......
  • Powers v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 3, 1930
    ......647; A. & V. R. R. Co. v. Thornhill, 106 Miss. 387; Cook v. State, 85 Miss. 137. . . Evidence. to contradict a witness as to collateral and irrelevant. matters is incompetent. [156 Miss. 318] . . . Williams. v. State, 73 Miss. 82; Davis v. State, 85 Miss. 416;. Cooper v. State, 94 Miss. 480. . . Venue. must be proven by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence,. such as is absolutely inconsistent with the theory that the. offence was committed in a county other than that charged. . . Ussery. v. State, 123 So. 854; Dorsey v. State, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT