Frazier v. State
| Citation | 107 So. 674,142 Miss. 456 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 25548 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Parties | FRAZIER v. STATE. [*] |
1. CRIMINAL LAW. Jury may convict on testimony of accomplice who admits that he committed perjury on former hearing and would have testified to same facts on trial, had accused procured lawyer for him; he not having been convicted of perjury.
Where a person charged with crime is placed on trial, and the principal witness against him is an accomplice in the crime and the accomplice testifies to the facts which, if believed make out a case of guilt, and such testimony is corroborated by the possession of some of the articles stolen by the accused, the jury may convict, although the state's witness admits that he committed perjury on a former hearing and would have testified to the same facts on the trial had the accused procured a lawyer for him; the jury may convict if they believe the testimony of the accomplice; he not having been convicted of the crime of perjury.
2. CRIMINAL LAW. Where, at beginning of trial, accused's counsel caused state's witness to be summoned for accused and requested private interview with him, but declined court's offer to permit conference in sheriff's hearing, and failed to renew request after state examined witness, and examination was full and complete, case will not be reversed for such reason.
Where, at the beginning of a trial, counsel for a defendant caused the state's witness to be summoned for the defendant, and requested an opportunity to have a private interview with such witness, and the court offers to permit him to confer with the witness in the hearing of the sheriff, and the attorney for the accused declines such offer, and fails to renew his request after the state has examined the witness, and where the examination shows a full and complete examination, the court will not reverse the case for this reason alone.
3. CRIMINAL LAW. Accused and his attorney are entitled to confer with any witness deemed essential to defense out of hearing of other persons, but, if witness is convict in custody, must confer with him in jail or other place where he cannot escape.
The defendant and his attorney are entitled to confer with any witness deemed essential for his defense, out of hearing of other persons, but, if the witness is a convict in custody, he must confer with the witness in the jail or other place where the convicted witness cannot escape.
APPEAL from circuit court of Adams county, HON. R. L. CORBAN, Judge.
Mose Frazier was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ratcliff & Kennedy, for appellant.
The court below exceeded its power and invaded the rights of appellant when his counsel was denied the right to confer with Ed Byrd before he was put on the stand. Byrd had pleaded guilty in this same case and appellant had subpoena issued for him as his witness. Conscious of his innocence, he believed that if the boy, Ed Byrd, could have been removed from certain influences which had him under control and be entirely unhampered by the presence of such persons, or of any officer, the boy would give information as to where the stolen articles were and thus exonerate him. He believed that, taken away from these influences, he would divulge information that would clear up the situation. He believed, then and now, that the boy had disposed of this jewelry. At any rate, he had the right to interview this witness privately.
The court cannot inquire into the question as to whether or not an interview would develop anything to the benefit of the client and, indeed, it might not; but this does not destroy his right to interview the witness to ascertain whether he can or not. The question involved is not one of results which may be beneficial to the client vel non, but we hold it is the duty of counsel to make every honorable effort to prepare himself by interview with witnesses for the proper defense of his client. We claim that it was a serious invasion upon appellant's rights. This act of the court was a substitute invasion of the rights of the appellant.
J. A. Lauderdale, special assistant attorney-general, for the state.
A conviction in a felony case upon the unsupported and uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is legal. Fitzcock v. State, 52 Miss. 923; White v. State, 52 Miss. 216; Wilson v. State, 71 Miss. 880.
Counsel for defendant were not permitted by the court to have a consultation with witness Byrd prior to the trial of this case, unless said consultation was in the presence of the sheriff or one of his deputies. At the time this motion was made, Byrd had entered a plea of guilty to burglary and was in the custody of the sheriff. Counsel for defense had no right to have a consultation with this witness. Section 26 of our state constitution guarantees to the defendant the right to be confronted by witnesses against him. In this case he was confronted by the witness Byrd who was a witness against him and the requirements of the constitution were fully met thereby, and he cannot now complain that he was not granted greater privileges than those granted to him by said section of the constitution. It also appears that if this action was error, that it was harmless to the defendant. The defendant's attorneys did cross-examine this witness and the record shows conclusively that he would not have been benefited by a consultation with him.
The appellant was convicted of burglary, and appeals.
It is insisted,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Redmond
...... doubt. . . In. re Stephens, 84 Cal. 77, 24 P. 46; In re. Mashbir, 44 A.D. 632, 60 N.Y.S. 451; Zachery v. State, 43 So. 925; State ex rel. Rude v. Young, . 30 Fla. 85, 11 So. 514; State ex rel. Fowler v. Finley, 30 Fla. 325, 11 So. 674, 18 L.R.A. 401;. ... witness, if relevant and deemed credible by the jury, is. sufficient for a conviction. . . 16 C. J., par. 1561, page 760; Frazier v. State, 142 Miss. 456-59; Matthews v. State, 148 Miss. 696; Shultz. v. State, 88 Neb. 613, 130 N.W. 105, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.). 243-49; State ......
-
State v. Dodson, 37584
...error. See State v. Gress, 210 Kan. 850, 504 P.2d 256 (1972); Bobo v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 774, 48 S.E.2d 213 (1948); Frazier v. State, 142 Miss. 456, 107 So. 674 (1926); Gallman v. State, 29 Ala.App. 264, 195 So. 768 (1940). It is only where the trial court's error results in prejudice to......
-
Com. v. Balliro
......Wood, 8 N.Y.2d 48, 201 N.Y.S.2d 328, 167 N.E.2d 736 (felon not guilty where two persons were killed by person who had gone to aid of police); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.E. 658, 122 S.E. 568 (felon not guilty where vitim of assault killed a bystander). Compare the so called 'shield' cases in which ... See Frazier v. State, 142 Miss. 456, 461, 107 So. 674; Atkins v. State, 115 Ohio St. 542, 549-554, 155 N.E. 189, cert. den. 274 U.S. 720, 743, 47 S.Ct. 590, 71 ......
-
Scott v. State
...of error overruled 169 Miss. 355, 153 So. 672 (1934) (time limitation imposed to avoid unreasonable delay of trial); Frazier v. State, 142 Miss. 456, 107 So. 674 (1926) (private conference with witness who was a convict denied because the witness was an escape risk); Mackie v. State, 138 Mi......