Dueitt v. State, 39832
| Decision Date | 07 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 39832,39832 |
| Citation | 225 Miss. 254,83 So.2d 91 |
| Parties | Cecil DUEITT, Curtis Highsmith and Buck Alford v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
W. S. Murphy, Lucedale, for appellants.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., by J. R. Griffin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellants, Cecil Dueitt, Curtis Highsmith and Buck Alford, were jointly indicted for and convicted of grand larceny of tung nuts, in the Circuit Court of George County. They first contend that the trial court erred in overruling their motions for a severance. They were arraigned and pleaded not guilty over two weeks before their motions for severance were filed. Although appellants had a right to severance by applying for it before arraignment, Code of 1942, Section 2514, the granting of it is discretionary with the trial court where application is made after arraignment. Bolin v. State, 1950, 209 Miss. 866, 873, 48 So.2d 581. There is no showing that the circuit court erred in denying severance under the circumstances of this case.
Alford signed a written confession, and in admitting it into evidence, the circuit court ruled that it was admissible only against the defendant Alford. The other defendants obtained an instruction to the jury that it could not consider any admissions in Alford's alleged confession in determining the guilt or innocence of the other defendants. This was clearly correct. The voluntary confession of a codefendant cannot be admitted against the other defendants when such confession was not made in their presence and assented to by them, even though the several defendants are being tried jointly. However, the confession of one such defendant can be admitted against that defendant, with instructions by the court to the jury that it is only admitted against that one defendant and is not to be considered as evidence against his codefendants. 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, Section 493; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, Sec. 820, p. 1441. In Davis v. State, 1946, 200 Miss. 514, 27 So.2d 769, the defendants were jointly indicted for grand larceny and were tried together. The confessions of each not made in the presence of the other but implicating the other were held to be admissible under the limitation that each applied only to the defendant who made it.
We also think that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of all of the defendants. The corpus delicti, or the fact that a crime was committed, was amply shown by the testimony of the owner of the tung nuts, Mrs. Dorsett, and her farm manager, Shotts. Their testimony and that of G. L. Ray as to the purchase by him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duckworth v. State, 54868
...is a matter of right if seasonable application is made. Thompson v. State, 231 Miss. 624, 97 So.2d 227 (1957); Dueitt v. State, 225 Miss. 254, 83 So.2d 91 (1955); Bolin et al v. State, 209 Miss. 866, 48 So.2d 581 (1950); Malone v. State, 77 Miss. 812, 26 So. 968 (1900). Neglected is the fin......
-
Ivory v. State, 49204
...Miss. 812, 26 So. 968; Lifer v. State, 1940, 189 Miss. 754, 199 So. 107.' 209 Miss. at 873, 48 So.2d at 583. See also, Dueitt v. State, 225 Miss. 254, 83 So.2d 91 (1955). In the case at bar, it was within the court's sound discretion whether a motion for severance should be granted and we c......
-
Brown v. State
...abused his discretion at that point in overruling the motion for severance. Ivory v. State, 336 So.2d 732 (Miss.1976); Dueitt v. State, 225 Miss. 254, 83 So.2d 91 (1955); Bolin v. State, 209 Miss. 866, 48 So.2d 581 The question of severance will not rise again on a new trial, since Wright d......
-
Henry v. State
...a co-conspirator if he assented thereto or made no denial thereof. Church v. State, 182 Miss. 802, 183 So. 525 (1938); Dueitt v. State, 225 Miss. 254, 83 So.2d 91 (1955); Underhill's Criminal Evidence § 274 at 542 (4th ed. 1935); 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 539 The appellant contends, however, ......