Frazier v. State, 47678
| Decision Date | 04 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47678,47678 |
| Parties | Freddie Mae FRAZIER v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Thomas L. Booker, Philadelphia, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Pete J. Cajoleas, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Freddie Mae Frazier (defendant) was convicted of manslaughter by culpable negligence by the Circuit Court of Neshoba County and sentenced to serve six years in the penitentiary.
Stated in the light most favorable to the State, the material facts are as follows. Defendant, a female Choctaw Indian, and Everett Sam, also a Choctaw, were at the 16-Drive-Inn in the afternoon. Everett Sam was 'heavily intoxicated,' and defendant had been drinking but was not intoxicated. Sam offered to take defendant riding in his car, but she refused to go unless she drove the car. Sam agreed and defendant drove away with Sam sitting beside her. She was an experienced driver but had no driver's license. Shortly thereafter, Sam put his hand on the gear shift and then decided he wanted to drive. He grabbed the steering wheel several times and finally pulled the steering wheel to the right so that the car ran off the road to the right. Defendant struggled to regain control of the car and in doing so caused the car to turn suddenly to the left when she lost control. The car then crossed into the left lane of traffic and collided with a car being driven by Mrs. Edith McMillan. Mrs. McMillan and two of her passengers were killed.
The State relied upon the statement given by defendant to Mrs. McMillan's husband and another statement given by defendant to officers through an interpreter. Everett Sam did not testify. Thus the defendant's version of what caused her to drive on the wrong side of the highway is the only proof offered on that factual question. There is no proof that defendant was speeding or that she was driving recklessly prior to the time Sam tried to take control of the car.
The determinative question is whether defendant was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal, or, to state it differently, whether the proof was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. McMillan died as a proximate result of defendant's culpable negligence. This question has several points of inquiry.
The statute under which defendant was indicted is Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2232 (1956) (§ 97-3-47, Miss.Code Ann. (1972)), as follows:
Every other killing of a human being, by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, and without authority of law, not provided for in this title, shall be manslaughter.
The landmark case of Smith v. State, 197 Miss. 802, 20 So.2d 701, 161 A.L.R. 1 (1945), construed this statute and laid down the rule that culpable negligence is such negligence as to evince a wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of human life, or such indifference to the consequences of the defendant's act under the surrounding circumstances as to render his conduct tantamount to wilfulness; that manslaughter should not be predicated on an indifference to just any consequences, but a disregard to the safety of human life is a necessary factor in every crime of manslaughter through culpable negligence; in short, culpable negligence should be defined as requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the conscious and wanton or reckless disregard of the probabilities of fatal consequences to others as a result of the wilful creation of an unreasonable risk thereof.
If defendant was guilty of culpable negligence, such guilt must be grounded on one or a combination of the following acts: (a) driving after drinking intoxicating liquor, (b) driving without a license, and (c) driving with a heavily intoxicated passenger.
(a) In Cutshall v. State, 191 Miss. 764, 4 So.2d 289 (1941), the Court stated that driving under the influence of liquor is a misdemeanor but '(f)or it to be a factor in a case involving culpable negligence it must create...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. State, 56915
...(1941). See also, Gandy v. State, 355 So.2d 1096, 1098 (Miss.1978); McNamee v. State, 313 So.2d 392, 395 (Miss.1975); Frazier v. State, 289 So.2d 690, 692 (Miss.1974). For example, in Gandy, 355 So.2d at 1098, this Court found a causal connection between the defendant's intoxication and his......
-
Hewlett v. State
...criminally culpable negligence it must contribute proximately to the negligence and to the resulting deaths. Frazier v. State, 289 So.2d 690, 692 (Miss.1974). The negligence of the deceased or of a third person is not a defense to a prosecution for a homicide resulting from the operation of......
-
Gray v. State, 53525
...a conviction of manslaughter. Roberts v. State, 379 So.2d 514 (Miss.1979); Gandy v. State, 373 So.2d 1042 (Miss.1979); Frazier v. State, 289 So.2d 690 (Miss.1974); and Cutshall v. State, 191 Miss. 764, 4 So.2d 289 (1941). Perhaps it is best stated in Gant v. State, 244 So.2d 18 (Miss.1971),......
-
Gandy v. State
...believe, there existed a causal connection between his intoxication and his automobile being in the wrong lane of traffic. Frazier v. State, 289 So.2d 690 (Miss.1973), is distinguishable from the facts of this case. There, someone other than the driver grasped the steering wheel of the car ......