Cunningham v. State
| Citation | 94 Miss. 228,48 So. 297 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Decision Date | 08 February 1909 |
| Parties | GEORGE CUNNINGHAM v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
October 1908
FROM the circuit court of Monroe county, HON. EUGENE O. SYKES Judge.
Cunningham appellant, was indicted and tried for the murder of Polly Johnson, was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for life, and appealed to the supreme court.
One of the grounds assigned in appellant's motion for a new trial was predicated of the fact that during the deliberation of the jury and before rendition of the verdict one of the jurors separated himself from his fellows. The testimony of the bailiff showed that when the jury had retired for the night, during their deliberation, he was awakened from sleep about two o'clock at night, by the re-entry into the jury roon of Juror Grady; that he did not know when the juror left the room; that no officer accompanied him when he separated himself from his fellows; that the juror, in answer to witness's inquiry, stated that he had left the jury room to obey an urgent call of nature and that he had only gone a few feet for that purpose, and had preferred not to awaken witness who was asleep when he departed.
There was no evidence that any one had communicated with the juror or that his temporary separation from his fellows in any way affected the result of the case.
Affirmed.
George C. Payne, for appellant.
Under the decision of Skates v. State, 64 Miss. 645, 1 So. 843, the verdict was clouded by the separation of the juror, Grady, from his fellow jurymen. The juror left the jury-room without permission and without the bailiff's knowledge. No one save himself knew whither he went, how long he stayed away from the jury-room, and whom, if anyone, he met while absent.
When the appellant proved, as he did, the absence of the juror, it devolved upon the state to offer evidence in explanation of the absence; and as the state failed to do so, the judgment based upon the clouded verdict, should be reversed and the case remanded.
George Butler, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
The facts in evidence overwhelmingly show that the appellant was guilty of a most shocking murder. Appellant contends that he should have been granted a new trial because of the separation of one juror from the others while they were spending the night in charge of their bailiff. But the evidence submitted on the hearing of appellant's motion for a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lattimore v. State
...because of illness and saw no one but a doctor. Clark v. State, 209 Miss. 586, 48 So.2d 127 (Miss.1950) (citing Cunningham v. State, 94 Miss. 228, 48 So. 297 (Miss. 1909); Haley v. State, 123 Miss. 87, 85 So. 129 (Miss.1920)). Obviously, neither exception applies in the present ¶ 74. The ca......
-
Wells v. State
...... a fact no such improper conduct on the part of the jury. His. finding in this regard comes before the appellate court with. all the force and effect of the finding of a jury. . . Skates. v. State, 64 Miss. 644; Cunningham v. State, 94. Miss. 228; Johnson v. State, 106 Miss. 94; White. v. State, 142 Miss. 484; Bailey v. State, 147. Miss. 428 Sullivan v. State, 149 Miss. 412;. Saunders v. State, 150 Miss. 296; Queen v. State, 152 Miss. 723; Lee v. State, 160 Miss. 618. . . Argued. orally by S. D. ......
-
Sullivan v. State
...... case, required to satisfy a jury of his innocence. [149 Miss. 414] It is sufficient if the evidence taken as a whole,. whether introduced by the state or by the defendant, leaves a. question of his guilt in reasonable doubt. Pollard v. State, 53 Miss. 410; Cunningham v. State, 56. Miss. 269; Hawthorne v. State, 58 Miss. 778;. Smith v. State, 58 Miss. 867; Ingram v. State, 62 Miss. 142; Dawson v. State, 62 Miss. 241; Bishop v. State, 62 Miss. 289. . . While. the jury were trying the appellant, one J. P. Jernberg was a. bailiff to the jury. It ......
-
Queen v. State
...of the defendant. It is manifest that such an argument cannot prevail. See Skates v. State, 64 Miss. 644, 1 So. 834; Cunningham v. State, 94 Miss. 228, 48 So. 297; Johnson v. State, 106 Miss. 94, 63 So. White v. State, 142 Miss. 484, 107 So. 755; Bailey v. State, 147 Miss. 428, 112 So. 594;......