Gentry v. State

• Decision Date: 11 January 1915
• Docket Number: 17575
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: GENTRY v. STATE

66 So. 982

108 Miss. 505

GENTRY v. STATE

No. 17575

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 11, 1915

APPEAL from the circuit court of Smith county. HON. W. H. HUGHES Judge.

Paul Gentry was convicted of assault and battery and appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

T. J Wills, for appellant.

Appellant asked the court to instruct the jury for the defendant "That the defendant at the outset of the trial is presumed to be an innocent man. He is not required to prove himself innocent or to put any evidence at all upon that subject. In considering the testimony in the case you must look at the testimony and view it in the light of that presumption which the law clothes the defendant with that he is innocent and it is a presumption that abides with him throughout the trial of the case until the evidence convinces you to the contrary beyond all reasonable doubt of his guilt." The court refused this instruction; this action of the court manifestly was error. It is the law of this state that a defendant charged with crime is presumed innocent of the crime in its entirety, and in all of its material parts until the state has shown to the contrary. Wilkie v. Collins, 48 Miss. 496; Owen v. State, 80 Miss. 499; Cook v. State, 85 Miss. 738.

For the errors committed by the trial court below we submit that the case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Ross A. Collins, Attorney-General for the state.

The fourth and fifth assignments of error relate to the granting of certain instructions for the state and the refusal of certain others for appellant. These instructions objected to are manifestly fair and proper and I shall take up the time of the court only in noticing the instruction specifically mentioned in appellant's brief, which instruction is as follows: "That the defendant, at the outset of the trial, is presumed to be an innocent man. He is not required to prove himself innocent or to put any evidence at all upon that subject. In considering the testimony in the case, you must look at the testimony and view it in the light of that presumption which the law clothes the defendant with, that he is innocent and it is a presumption that abides with him throughout the trial of the case until the evidence convinces you to the contrary beyond all reasonable doubt of his guilt."

This instruction is unduly broad in that it focuses undue attention to the manner of construing testimony as it is only required that the jury believe from the evidence as a whole, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty.

I submit that in the light of all the defining and qualifying instructions given for the appellant that he was not prejudiced in any manner whatsoever by the denial of this one. The jury were well and fairly instructed in every phase of the offense and all that was essential to constitute his guilt or innocence, and their verdict based upon the evidence and these instructions simply means this, that whether or not Sullivan struck first, whether the appellant attacked him with a dangerous weapon with murderous intent, when it was unnecessary for his defense, or when he was in no serious danger, either real or apparent. I submit that the indictment is amply sustained by the proof and that the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court, which was indeed a lenient one, should be affirmed.

OPINION

COOK, J.

Appellant was indicted for an assault and battery with the...