Dabney v. State
Citation | 33 So. 973,82 Miss. 252 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Decision Date | 31 March 1903 |
Parties | SAMUEL DABNEY v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
March 1903
FROM the circuit court of Adams county. HON. JEFF TRULY, Judge.
Dabney appellant, was indicted, tried and convicted of rape, and appealed to the supreme court.
On the trial a witness was permitted to testify, over defendant's objection, that he, the witness, lived in an adjoining room to the prosecutrix and that his trunk was broken open and a suit of clothes stolen therefrom by defendant about the time the woman claimed to have been raped.
Reversed and remanded.
R. L Jones and A. Jones, for appellant.
The court erred in admitting evidence for the state as to defendant's stealing clothes from the house of prosecutrix, and thereby biasing the jury against him and causing it to convict him on general principles because he seemed guilty of larceny, which crime probably furnished the motive for his being prosecuted.
J. N. Flowers, assistant attorney general, for appellee.
The testimony about the clothes being stolen was competent, since it helped to establish the identity of the accused.
It was error to admit the testimony as to the appellant's breaking into the trunk and stealing the clothes therefrom. There are cases in which it is competent to prove the commission of other crimes, and the principle within which this proof is allowed is very clearly stated in Rice's Evidence, vol. 3, c. 25. Such proof is allowed where the different crimes are parts of a system of crimes. An illustration of this is the case of Regina v Geering, 18 L. J. M. C., 215. That was the case of a woman indicted for poisoning her husband in September, 1848, and the question was whether the poison was accidentally or intentionally administered, and it was held competent to show that three sons had been poisoned by the administration of the same poison in December, 1848, March, 1849, and April, 1849, and that defendant had prepared the meals containing the poison for all four of the poisoned persons. Where one crime is shown to be intimately connected with another, so as to furnish the motive for the commission of the crime charged, it is permitted to prove such other crime. We select two of the best statements we have found of the exceptions to the rule; one contained in the opinion of Agnew, J., in Shaffner v. The Commonwealth, 72 Pa. 60, 13 Am. Rep., 649, set out on page 209 of volume 3 of Rice on Evidence; and the other contained in the opinion of Judge Dickson in State v. Raymond, 53 N.J.L. 260, 21 A. 328, set out at page 212 in Rice's work, supra. The former is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sauer v. State
...... is inadmissible. . . Raines. v. State, 81 Miss. 489, 33 So. 19; Baygent v. State, . 144 Miss. 442, 110 So. 114; McLin v. State, 150. Miss. 507, 116 So. 533; [166 Miss. 511] King v. State, 66 Miss. 507, 6 So. 189; Dabney v. State, 82. Miss. 252, 33 So. 973. . . The. giving of instruction No. 1 for the state was fatal error,. because it is in conflict with the rules of the law with. reference to the force and effect of circumstantial evidence,. and tends to minimize and discount instruction No. 2 ......
-
Floyd v. State
...McLin v. State, 116 So. 533; Willoughby v. State, 122 So. 757; 16 C. J., p. 589; King v. State, 66 Miss. 502, 6 So. 188; Dabney v. State, 82 Miss. 252, 33 So. 973; Collier v. State, 106 Mass. 613, 64 So. Hurd v. State, 137 Miss. 178, 102 So. 293; Parkinson v. State, 145 Miss. 237, 110 So. 5......
-
Lambert v. State
...introduction of this evidence requires a reversal of the case. 304 So.2d at 653. An analogous fact situation appears in Dabney v. State, 82 Miss. 252, 33 So. 973 (1903). Defendant was indicted and prosecuted for rape. A key state witness lived in a room adjacent to where the rape occurred. ......
-
McFee v. State
...and final argument by the prosecuting attorney.4 I consider the "absolutely necessary" standard originating in Dabney v. State, 82 Miss. 252, 255, 33 So. 973 (1903) cited recently in Williams v. State, 463 So.2d 1078, 1080 (Miss.1985) as so much loose talk which we ought read to mean "reaso......