Gibbs v. State
| Decision Date | 02 October 1933 |
| Docket Number | 30814 |
| Citation | 167 Miss. 598,149 So. 796 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | GIBBS v. STATE |
1. CRIMINAL LAW.
Instruction to convict defendant if codefendant assaulted and robbed prosecuting witness, and defendant was present, aided, and abetted robbing, held not error.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.
Prosecutor's comment, in robbery prosecution, that defendant and other young bucks did not come to court to testify, held reversible error, though prosecutor had not finished statement when interrupted and had intended to add additional words.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Adams county HON. R. L. CORBAN Judge.
Buster Gibbs was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
D. C. Bramlette, of Woodville, for appellant.
The comment on failure of appellant to testify was error.
Section 1530, Code of 1930, provides that the accused shall be a competent witness for himself in any prosecution for crime against himself; but the failure of the accused, in any case, to testify shall not operate to his prejudice, or be commented on by counsel.
Appellant did not testify. The county attorney of Adams county in making the opening argument for the state used the following language: "Defendant and other young bucks--not one of them came here and testified. . . .;" whereupon counsel for appellant immediately objected.
We respectfully submit that a reversal of this case is inescapable on account of the remarks of the attorney for the state.
Harwell v. State, 129 Miss. 858, 93 So. 366; Guest v. State, 158 Miss. 588, 130 So. 908; Gurley v. State, 101 Miss. 190, 57 So. 565; Harris v. State, 96 Miss. 379, 50 So. 626; Prince v. State, 93 Miss. 263, 46 So. 537; Drane v. State, 92 Miss. 180, 45 So. 149; Smith v. State, 87 Miss. 627, 40 So. 229; Hoff v. State, 83 Miss. 488, 35 So. 950; Sanders v. State, 73 Miss. 444, 18 So. 541; Reddick v. State, 72 Miss. 1008, 16. So. 490; Yarbrough v. State, 70 Miss. 593, 12 So. 551; Winchester v. State, 142 So. 455.
The court below erred in granting the following instruction: "The court instructs the jury for the state of Mississippi, that if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case that Ethel Reed did then and there unlawfully and feloniously make an assault upon Mrs. Lizzie Peters and did then and there feloniously, by violence to the person of Mrs. Lizzie Peters and from the person of and against the will of Mrs. Lizzie Peters, did take the sum of thirty-four dollars good and lawful money of the United States, the personal property of the said Mrs. Lizzie Peters, with the intent to unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away, and that the defendant, Buster Gibbs, was then and there present, aiding, abetting, assisting and encouraging the said Ethel Reed, in the said felonious robbing of the said Mrs. Lizzie Peters, then he is as guilty as said Ethel Reed and the jury should return a verdict of guilty."
W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
A special bill of exceptions shows that the county attorney of Adams county, in the opening argument to the jury in this case, made the following statement: "Defendant and other young bucks--not one of them came here and testified." At this point appellant objected, objection sustained, and the county attorney directed by the court to stay within the record. Appellant then moved for a mistrial, which was overruled.
It is not permissible to single out sentences, disconnected with the context, and, where objection is taken to statements, enough of the context ought to be embraced in the bill of exceptions to enable the court to know what a fair construction of the statement would mean.
Carter v. State, 140 Miss. 265, 105 So. 514; McLeod v. State, 130 Miss. 83, 92 So. 828; Blackwell v. State, 161 Miss. 487, 135 So. 192.
Counsel says that although appellant was indicted as a principal, his conviction was asked solely as an accessory. On this I take issue with counsel, because the indictment shows he was charged as a principal and the instruction calls for his conviction as a principal -- one aiding and abetting in the robbery and not as an accessory, either before or after the fact.
Persons who assist, aid and abet others in the commission of a crime are equally guilty and may be tried as principals; or present, consenting to the commission of an offense, and doing any act which is an ingredient of, or immediately connected with it, or leading to its commission, is a principal.
Kitrell v. State, 89 Miss. 666, 42 So. 609; McCoy v. State, 91 Miss. 257, 44 So. 814; Crawford v. State, 133 Miss. 147, 97 So. 534; Dedeaux v. State, 125 Miss. 326, 87 So. 664.
Buster Gibbs was convicted for the crime of robbery and was sentenced to serve a term of one year in the state penitentiary, from which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitts v. State
...fall within any of the classes for which reversal is often had, such as comment on the failure of defendant to testify, Gibbs v. State, 1933, 167 Miss. 598, 149 So. 796, abusive language aimed at the defendant, Hampton v. State, 1906, 88 Miss. 257, 40 So. 545, or an appeal to recial prejudi......
-
Hughes v. State
... ... racial prejudice and to popular clamor ... Bryan ... v. State, 33 So. 225; Minor v. State, 57 So. 548; ... Magnes v. State, 60 So. 8; Moseley v ... State, 73 So. 791; Garner v. State, 83 So. 83; ... Smith v. State, 105 So. 758; Gibbs v ... State, 149 So. 796; Seal v. State, 153 So. 385 ... W. D ... Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state ... Under ... the facts of this case, the peremptory instruction should not ... have been granted ... Justice ... v. State, 170 Miss. 96, ... ...
-
Hatcher v. State
...fall within any of the classes for which reversal is often had, such as comment on the failure of defendant to testify, Gibbs v. State, 1933, 167 Miss. 598, 149 So. 796, abusive language aimed at the defendant, Hampton v. State, 1906, 88 Miss. 257, 40 So. 545, or an appeal to racial prejudi......
- Williamson v. State