Crawford v. State
| Decision Date | 01 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 38041,38041 |
| Citation | 54 So.2d 230 |
| Parties | CRAWFORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Smith & Hurdle and Fant & Bush, Holly Springs, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Kenneth Crawford was indicted for the murder of G. T. Terry. On the trial, the jury found him guilty of manslaughter, and the court sentenced him to serve a term of ten years in the state penitentiary. From that judgment, he appeals.
The killing occurred during a picnic at Samuels Chapel, a Negro church. According to the State's version, the deceased, Terry, and another were talking. Will Crawford, appellant's brother, interrupted their conversation; and when Terry asked 'What is it to you?', Will Crawford struck him and started to walk or run away. Terry followed and was shot in the back by the appellant, who was approximately 12 feet away. One State witness testified that the appellant was close enough to hear the entire conversation and see what occurred. Three witnesses for the State testified that the deceased, as he was following after Will Crawford, had no knife or weapon of any kind. The State showed that the deceased, immediately upon the firing of the shot, fell upon clean ground, free from weeds and grass, and that no one took any weapon either from the body or from the ground. When the sheriff arrived at the scene, he made a thorough examination, but found no weapon of any kind thereabout. His search yielded only a tobacco sack and several pennies.
Will Crawford denied that he hit the deceased. His version was that the deceased, for no reason whatever, threatened his life and started after him with a knife. Two other witnesses testified that that the deceased was chasing Will Crawford with a knife. Appellant testified that he heard the threats, saw the deceased after his brother with the knife, and shot in order to protect his brother.
The issue thus presented was whether or not the appellant, at the time he shot and killed the deceased, had reasonable ground to believe that the deceased was about to kill his brother or do him some great personal injury, within the purview of par. (f), Section 2218, Code of 1942.
With three witnesses declaring that the deceased had no knife and four affirming that he did have a knife, and in view of the further fact that no knife was found, it was for the jury to determine the veracity of the witnesses. Consequently there was no error in submitting this issue to the jury. Burrill v. Rau, 153 Miss. 437, 121 So. 118; Clanton v. State, Miss. 49 So.2d 267; Robinson v. State, Miss., 49 So.2d 413.
It is contended that the State's instruction on manslaughter was erroneous in that it did not contain all of the necessary elements of such crime. The instruction is as follows:
The appellant admitted that he killed the deceased with a pistol, which is a dangerous weapon. The instruction does not contain the clause 'not in necessary selfdefense,' as provided by Section 2226, Code of 1942. But there was no contention that the appellant was acting in his own selfdefense. Neither does it contain the phrase 'not in necessary defense of another.' However, the appellant obtained thirteen instructions on that particular point. And while we would not approve the quoted instruction as a model, when it is considered with the instructions given for the appellant, a clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyles v. State
...723, 31 So. 420 (1901) we criticized this instruction. Subsequent thereto, it was not found to be reversible error in Crawford v. State, 54 So.2d 230 (Miss.1951), Johnson v. State, 46 So.2d 924 (Miss.1950), and Wiggins v. State, 199 Miss. 114, 23 So.2d 691 (1945). As was pointed out in McGe......
-
State v. Leavitt
...189 F.2d 431 (3 Cir. 1951); State v. Ernst, 32 N.J. 567, 161 A.2d 511 (1960). In holdings to the contrary, however, see Crawford v. State, Miss., 54 So.2d 230 (1951), and State v. Bonner, 241 Or. 404, 406 P.2d 160 Nevertheless, defendant argues forcefully that by reason of the exact languag......
-
Wheeler v. State
...'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus', and this Court has repeatedly held that this instruction should not be given. See Crawford v. State, Miss., 54 So.2d 230, and the authorities there During the trial appellant brought out the fact that the C. & E. Sandwich Shop was burglarized on the occas......
-
Trask v. State
...in the case of McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 822, 104 So. 150, which was held not to be erroneous. The recent case of Crawford v. State, Miss., 54 So.2d 230, 232, is a similar case to the instant case in that the appellant testified that he killed the deceased in order to protect his brother.......