Garner v. State
| Decision Date | 11 December 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19424 |
| Citation | 73 So. 50,112 Miss. 317 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | GARNER v. STATE |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Tunica county, HON. W. A. ALCORN, Jr., Judge.
L. C. Garner was convicted of murder and appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Affirmed.
Montgomery & Montgomery, for appellant.
Ross A. Collins, Attorney-General, and Cutrer & Johnston, for appellee.
The evidence in this case establishes, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt, that the appellant was guilty of murder, unless the evidence offered in his defense raises a reasonable doubt of his sanity at the time he committed the homicide. All of the evidence to support the theory of insanity was excluded by the trial judge.
We have carefully read the evidence given by all of the witnesses touching the alleged mental incapacity of appellant, and believe that it was properly excluded. At the most, this evidence tends to prove that defendant was probably eccentric, passionate, and excitable, but it is clear to us that no evidence was produced which would cause any reasonable man to doubt his sanity.
The motive and the reason for the homicide is perfectly clear. The defendant believed that the deceased had circulated reports calculated to destroy the reputation of his sister, and, so believing, he took the law in his own hands, and slew her traducer.
It is not for us to say whether or not the deceased did, in fact, circulate the slanderous reports, but we are justified in saying that appellant believed that he did, and acted deliberately when he fired the fatal shot. Mere frenzy or ungovernable passion is not insanity within the meaning of the law. The defendant was evidently controlled by passion and a spirit of revenge, but there is no reason to believe that his mind was diseased; passion controlled his will and motives. The efficient cause of this deplorable tragedy was not insanity. There was no evidence to warrant a doubt of appellant's mental responsibility.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herron v. State, 47589
...acts are wrong. Burr v. State, 237 Miss. 338, 114 So.2d 764 (1959); Eatman v. State, 169 Miss. 295, 153 So. 381 (1934); Garner v. State, 112 Miss. 317, 73 So. 50 (1916); Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269 The general rule in Mississippi is set forth in Eatman v. State, supra, as follows: '. ......
-
Waycaster v. State
...under the authority of the cases of: Tidwell v. State, 84 Miss. 475, 36 So. 393; Jones v. State, 97 Miss. 269, 52 So. 791; Garner v. State, 112 Miss. 317, 73 So. 50; Eatman v. State, 169 Miss. 295, 153 So. Pullen v. State, 175 Miss. 810, 168 So. 69. However, we are of the opinion that these......
-
Boudreaux v. State
... ... defendant sane ... Smith ... v. State, 95 Miss. 786, 49 So. 945 ... There ... was some testimony, however, tending to show that defendant ... had all ungovernable temper, but this is not insanity of ... sufficient scope to excuse crime ... Garner ... v. State, 112 Miss. 317, 73 So. 50; Bovard v. State, ... 30 Miss. 600 ... Where ... there has been a confession, the proof of the corpus delicti ... must be established only to the extent that it satisfies the ... mind that a real and not an imaginary crime has been ... ...
-
Eatman v. State
... ... case was the result of an irresistible impulse, then it was ... proper for the trial court to exclude all of this testimony, ... for the reason that it was all irrelevant and immaterial and ... it could not have the effect of creating any issue for the ... Garner ... v. State, 112 Miss. 317, 73 So. 50 ... The ... only inference that can be drawn from all the testimony ... relating to Eatman's condition is that Eatman knows the ... difference between right and wrong and is capable of knowing ... and appreciating the nature and quality of his ... ...