Golden v. State
| Decision Date | 03 May 1897 |
| Citation | 75 Miss. 130,21 So. 971 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | JAMES GOLDEN v. THE STATE of MISSISSIPPI |
March 1897
FROM the circuit court of Tippah county HON. Z. M. STEPHENS Judge.
The appellant was indicted and tried for rape. During the trial and after the state had closed its evidence without introducing her, Addie Nelson, the injured party was placed on the stand as a witness for the defense, and was, in the opinion of the judge, palpably guilty of perjury. Thereupon the court exercised the power conferred by statute, and caused the woman to be taken into custody; and this was done in the presence and hearing of the jury. The statute, from code 1892, is as follows:
The appellant was convicted, and appealed.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
John Y Murray, Jr., for appellant.
The court erred in directing the sheriff to take charge of witness, Addie Nelson, and put her in jail to await the action of the grand jury, on a charge of perjury. Although § 1384 of the annotated code gives the court authority and perhaps enjoins action in the state of case provided for, yet it is not intended that the court shall, in the presence and hearing of the jury, commit such a witness to jail under this statute. The right of a trial by jury is a constitutional one, and such a trial is meant as is by taw contemplated. In the realm of determining the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses, the province of the jury is exclusive and supreme, and it is not enough to say that it was their duty to exercise their own judgment touching that province, uninfluenced by any charge of the court. That is asking too much of juries unlearned in the law, and is too radical a departure from the principles of trial by jury to be countenanced.
Wiley N. Nash, attorney-general, for the state.
The action of the court was expressly warranted by § 1384 code of 1892. The statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benton v. State
... ... comment upon, or expression of opinion as to, the credibility ... of such witness, and as to the guilt of the defendant, ... expressly prohibited by the Code, § 81-1104. Burke v ... State, 66 Ga. 157; State v. Primmer, 69 Wash ... 400, 125 P. 158; Golden v. State, 75 Miss. 130, 21 ... So. 971; Lile v. State, 186 Ark. 483, 54 S.W.2d 293; ... Crosby v. State, 154 Ark. 20, 241 S.W. 380; ... Talliaferro v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 57, 200 P. 1068; ... State v. Swink, 151 N.C. 726, 66 S.E. 448, 19 ... Ann.Cas. 422; Caruth v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 150, 177 ... ...
-
Crosby v. State
...away whisky, etc. This court held that the conduct of the court constituted prejudicial error, and we quoted from the case of Golden v. State, 75 Miss. 130, 21 South. 971, as "It is very easy to order such witness into custody, and to do it `immediately,' without the knowledge of the jury. ......
-
Crosby v. State
... ... and hold him to bail in the sum of $ 500 to answer the charge ... of giving away whiskey, etc. This court held that the conduct ... of the court constituted prejudicial error, and [154 Ark. 25] ... we quoted from the case of Golden v. State, ... 75 Miss. 130, 21 So. 971, as follows: "It is very easy ... to order such witness into custody, and to do it ... 'immediately,' without the knowledge of the jury. The ... testimony in this case is exceedingly unsatisfactory, and, in ... view of that fact, this action of the court ... ...
-
Benton v. State
...expressly prohibited by the Code, § 81-1104. Burke v. State, 66 Ga. 157; State v. Primmer, 69 Wash. 400, 125 P. 158; Golden v. State, 75 Miss. 130, 21 So. 971; Lile v. State, 186 Ark. 483, 54 SW.2d 293; Crosby v. State, 154 Ark. 20, 241 S.W. 380; Talliaferro v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 57, 200 P. ......