Davis v. State

Decision Date14 May 1923
Docket Number23074
Citation96 So. 307,132 Miss. 448
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesDAVIS v. STATE

March 1923

CRIMINAL LAW. Where unreasonable story of prosecutrix is contradicted and defendant may not have had fair trial, a new trial should be granted.

When testimony of prosecutrix in a rape case, who was not chaste and made no outcry, is unreasonable as a whole, and strongly contradicted by circumstances and direct testimony, and the public was so inflamed against accused, and the atmosphere so charged with this hostile feeling, that defendant very likely did not have a fair and impartial trial, a new trial should be granted.

HON. R S. HALL, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Jones county, HON. R. S. HALL, Judge.

Will Davis was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

B. F Carter, W. J. Pack and W. L. Pack, for appellant.

The proof was wholly insufficient to support the verdict of the jury. It has long been the settled policy of this court, in cases such as the one now at bar, to closely examine all the facts, and unless thoroughly convinced that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt, the court will set aside the verdict and remand the case for a new trial. We realize that as a general rule this court is slow to disturb the finding of the jury in a criminal case, and rightly so. But in the consideration of rape cases, an exception to the rule is clearly recognized, and on numerous occasions the court has reversed rape cases solely upon the ground that the proof was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

In investigating this proposition we have read the opinions of this court in all the rape cases mentioned in the Mississippi digests, and the opinions in all rape cases decided since the compiling of the digests. We may have overlooked some cases, but if so, it has not been intentional. Our investigation discloses some statistics that to us are very interesting, and we set them down briefly here, thinking they may be of some interest to the court.

We have read forty-six cases, forty-four of this number having been appealed by the accused, and two by the state. Of the forty-four appealed by the accused, thirty-six have been reversed. Eighteen because of insufficiency of proof; four because of defect in indictment; five because of error in the exclusion of testimony; eight because of error in admission of incompetent testimony; 1 because of error in instructions.

Of course, in some of these cases, there were combinations of errors, but we have tried in every case to discover the point that seemed to have impressed the court most, and that caused the reversal of the case. It will be noted that one-half of the cases reversed were reversed chiefly because of insufficiency of proof. These figures emphasize more clearly than any words could do, the great care of this court in reviewing the evidence in cases of this kind, and its quickness to set aside the verdict unless the guilt of the accused is clearly shown. Monroe v. State, 13 So. 884; Green v. State, 67 Miss. ; Adams v. State, 47 So. 787.

These quotations show clearly the position of our court, and in our opinion it is well taken. The crime of rape is universally spoken of as being "so easy to charge, and so hard to disprove," and if, as in the case at bar, the accused is placed on trial only a few days after commission of the alleged offense, public sentiment is nearly always highly inflamed against him, crowds jam the place of trial, there is great danger that the defendant's witnesses will be threatened and intimidated, and although every effort be made by the court to give the accused a fair trial, it is an almost impossible thing to do.

If, in the case of Monroe v. State, 13 So. 884, this court criticized the prosecutrix, an eleven year old girl and doubted her story because she did not blow a dinner horn and thus summon aid, what shall be said of the prosecutrix in the case at bar, who made not the slightest attempt to secure protection against the gross indignities which she alleged were being inflicted upon her?

If the testimony of prosecutrix is to be believed when she says that she was dragged from the car, taken into the wood and raped by each of the three men, in the presence and with the assistance of the other two, what we respectfully ask, is to be done with the testimony of the five witnesses who conclusively corroborate the story told by the appellant and Holifield? All this testimony conclusively establishes the falsity of the story told by prosecutrix, and the truth of that told by appellant and Holifield.

In the light of all the testimony, we respectfully submit that the proof in this case falls far short of that high degree always required by this court in cases of this character, and that the facts contained in this record "are not in such harmony and consistency of relation as to support with satisfaction the verdict of the jury."

Cassedy Holden, Assistant attorney-general, for the state.

The appellant contends that the proof was insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. This court has so many times passed upon this question that little discussion would be helpful. It is true that the crime of rape is easily charged and difficult to prove or disprove. But there is no presumption against the veracity of the prosecuting witness. And while the testimony of the prosecutrix is to be scrutinized with care and judgment, yet no unreasonable suspicion should be indulged against her. Hogan v. State, 46 Miss. 274.

Where the only witness is the prosecutrix, there is a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, and the evidence is insufficient. Rawls v. State, 105 Miss. 406, 62 So 420. Though the uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix in a rape case may be sufficient, it is not when there are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Odom v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1935
    ...71 Miss. 82, 14 So. 526; Sprinkle v. State, 102 So. 844, 137 Miss. 731; Holifield v. State, 132 Miss. 446, 96 So. 306; Davis v. State, 132 Miss. 448, 96 So. 307. On morning of September 28th, the evidence having all been then submitted, Mr. Bell, one of the jury bailiffs, purchased for Dan ......
  • Dean v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1935
    ... 160 So. 584 162 So. 155, 173 Miss. 254 DEAN v. STATE No. 31454 Supreme Court of Mississippi May 27, 1935 ... April ... APPEAL ... from the circuit court of Leflore county HON. S. F. DAVIS, ... Sarah ... Ruth Dean was convicted of murder by poisoning, and she ... appeals. Affirmed ... On ... suggestion of error. Suggestion overruled ... Affirmed ... Gardner ... & Denman, of Greenwood, and J. J. Breland, of Sumner, for ... ...
  • Aetna Ins. Co. v. Singleton
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 11, 1935
    ...Miss. 96; M. & O. R. Co. v. Johnson, 165 Miss. 397; Holderfield v. State, 132 Miss. 440; C. & G. R. Co. v. Buford, 150 Miss. 832; Davis v. State, 132 Miss. 448. O. Triplett, Jr., of Forest, for appellee. The time of payment of the May 1, 1930, installment was extended until January 1, 1931,......
  • Dean v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1935
    ... ... 13. CRIMINAL LAW. Where judges of ... Supreme Court equally divide on appeal from judgment of trial ... court, judges who are of opinion that there is no error in ... record are not required to surrender their views and concur ... in reversal of judgment ... HON. S ... F. DAVIS, Judge. [173 Miss. 259] ... Sarah ... Ruth Dean was convicted of murder by poisoning, and she ... appeals. Affirmed ... On ... suggestion of error. Suggestion overruled ... Gardner ... & Denman, of Greenwood, and J. J. Breland, of Sumner, for ... appellant ... ...
  • 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