Crum v. State

• Decision Date: 08 November 1886
• Citation: 1 So. 1,64 Miss. 1
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: FRED. CRUM v. THE STATE

1 So. 1

64 Miss. 1

FRED. CRUM v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 8, 1886

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Hinds County, HON. T. J. WHARTON Judge.

The appellant, Fred. Crum, was indicted for murder, upon a charge of having killed Jesse Ford. He was convicted of manslaughter, and, from the judgment against him, appealed to this court. A supplemental statement of the case will be found in the opinion of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

D. S Fearing and Wells & Williamson, for the appellant.

The first and third instructions given for the State do not properly announce the law.

The third instruction is clearly wrong, and beyond a doubt misled the jury in this case. It never devolves on the defendant to prove anything in his case clearly and certainly, but the burden is always on the State to show that defendant committed the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. The third instruction announces to the jury that it must be shown by the defendant's evidence, or the State's in connection with the defendant's, that the neglect or mistreatment of the wound was the sole cause of the death. This is not correct. It deprives defendant of the reasonable doubt that might arise in the mind of the jury as to whether deceased died of the wound or by reason of the mistreatment or neglect. It does not properly submit the question to the jury. See McBeth v. State, 50 Miss. 81-85; Bishop Cr. Law, vol. 2, § 639.

T. M Miller, Attorney General, for the State.

The third instruction may seem questionable, yet it is fully sustained by reason and authority.

When one inflicts a dangerous wound from which death results although superinduced by the misconduct of the wounded person, he cannot on the latter account escape the consequences of his act. There is no disagreement of authority upon this point. Of course, if a wounded person die from a separate and distinct cause the death cannot be charged to the party delivering the wound; but the dangerous wound being proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the death being traced to it also beyond a reasonable doubt, that is all the law requires.

On principle it will not do to say the party might have recovered had he been properly treated, or had he conducted himself as a wounded man of good discretion should. To admit that doctrine would involve an inquiry in all cases, where death was not an immediate consequence, into the propriety or rationale of the treatment pursued or the conduct of the injured man. From the very nature of the case, the death from a different cause being a collateral thing, the testimony ought to be clear; that is to say, it is necessary to show something more than that the person wounded might have recovered. And so the law is thus laid down by Lord Hale (an undoubted authority upon the common law): "If a man gives another a stroke which, it may be, is not in itself so mortal but that with good care he might be cured, yet if he dies of this wound within the year and day, it is homicide or murder, as the case is, and so it hath been always ruled. But if the wound or hurt be not mortal, but by ill applications by the party or those about him of unwholesome salves or medicines, the party dies, if it can clearly appear that this medicine and not the wound was the cause of his death, it seems it is not homicide; but then that must appear clearly and certainly to be so. But if a man receives a wound which is not in itself mortal, but either for want of helpful applications or neglect thereof it turns to a gangrene or fever, and that gangrene or fever be the immediate cause of his death, yet this is murder or manslaughter in him that gave the stroke or wound, for that wound, though it were not the immediate cause of his death, yet if it were the mediate cause thereof, and the fever or gangrene was the immediate cause of his death, yet the wound was the cause of the gangrene or fever, and so consequently is causa causati." 1 Hale's Pl. of the Cr. 428; McAllister v. The State, 17 Ala. 434, citing the above; also, Rew's Case Kel. 26; Roscoe's Cr. Ev. 574; 1 Russell on Cr. 529; 1 Ash. 289; see State v. Scott, 12 La. Ann. 274; see also 3 Green. on Ev., § 139, and cases cited in note 2.

The charge condemned by the court in McBeth v. State, 50 Miss. 81, was different from...