Dobson v. State

• Citation: 7 So. 327,67 Miss. 330
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 03 March 1890
• Parties: ROBERT DOBSON v. THE STATE

7 So. 327

67 Miss. 330

ROBERT DOBSON v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 3, 1890

FROM the circuit court of Harrison county, HON. S. H. TERRAL Judge.

Appellant was indicted for knowingly altering the mark of a sheep, the property of one Davis. The only evidence adduced on the trial was that of Davis and two other witnesses, who testified that they found a lamb running in the open woods, between the home of Davis and that of the accused, and that the mark of the lamb had been altered from that of Davis, its owner, to that of the appellant.

The jury found a verdict of guilty. Motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment in the penitentiary.

Reversed and remanded.

E. J Bowers, for the appellant.

There is nothing in the record to connect appellant with the alteration of the mark, save the circumstances that it was found with its former mark changed to that of appellant. This is wholly insufficient to warrant a conviction. To say that this evidence renders appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is to make it possible to convict the most innocent for acts done by others, and to shut them off from any defense. It is impossible in such cases for them to do more than to deny commission of the offense. It would, in fact require a defendant to establish his innocence.

While this court will in all cases be somewhat slow to reverse merely on the facts when the judge below, who heard all the witnesses, declined to grant a new trial, yet this should be done where the evidence falls so far short of proving guilt as it does in this case.

T. M. Miller, attorney-general, for the state.

It is submitted to the court whether the jury were warranted in convicting the appellant upon testimony merely to the effect that the mark of prosecutor's sheep was changed to the defendant's mark. I find nothing in the record connecting the appellant with the crime proved, outside the fact of his interest.

OPINION

CAMPBELL, J.

The verdict should have been promptly set aside; indeed the jury might properly have been directed by the court to give a verdict of not guilty. There is no evidence tending to show the guilt of the defendant, and no such a verdict should be allowed to stand. An important factor, influential in determining this court not to disturb verdicts, where there is evidence to sustain them is, that the circuit judge sanctions the...