Harrelson v. State, 38657
Decision Date | 08 June 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 38657,38657 |
Citation | 217 Miss. 887,65 So.2d 237 |
Parties | HARRELSON v. STATE. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
W. I. Stone, Coffeeville, Kermit R. Cofer, Water Valley, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., by Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Glenn Harrelson, was convicted of the murder of his wife, and the jury being unable to agree upon the punishment, he was sentenced by the court to a life term in the penitentiary, and from this judgment he appeals.
The record discloses that the appellant's wife died as a result of a wound inflicted upon her by a bullet from a 22 rifle in the hands of the appellant. The killing took place in appellant's home on Saturday afternoon, May 26, 1951, in the presence of their child, a boy two years of age. According to the appellant's testimony, he had been down on the creek with friends shooting the rifle, and it snapped. Upon returning home, he took the gun apart to see what caused it to snap; he took his knife and struck the gun a couple of times, and the gun fired, killing his wife who was sitting in a chair near by. Upon the arrival of appellant's mother and neighbors after the shooting, his mother stated that appellant was 'messing with the gun and it went off,' and the appellant said: 'I don't know how it happened.' Upon being questioned by the officers on the afternoon of the killing, the appellant said that he was not in the room at the time of the shooting and 'he reckoned his child must have done it.' The following Wednesday the officers again questioned the appellant with reference to the shooting, the sheriff telling him that he did not believe the two year old child shot his wife. The appellant then admitted that he did the shooting himself. When asked why he did not state this in the beginning, he said that the people would not believe him for the reason that they did not like him.
The appellant, testifying in his own behalf at the trial, admitted that he made conflicting and false statements as to the killing. His explanation was that he was upset and scared, that he did not intentionally kill his wife but that it was an accident.
The appellant's main assignment of error argued is that the court erred in refusing a requested peremptory instruction on the ground that the appellant was the sole surviving witness to the homicide, that his testimony that the killing was accidental was reasonable and must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by facts of common knowledge, citing Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 147 So. 481, and Barclay v. State, Miss., 43 So.2d 213. We are of the opinion that the above rule is not applicable here. Grady v. State, 144 Miss. 778, 110 So. 225, Pitts v. State, 211 Miss. 268, 51 So.2d 448. We have carefully examined the record and find that although this is a close case on the facts, the court committed no error in submitting it to the jury.
There are other assignments of error argued which will not be discussed, since this case will have to be reversed and remanded for a new trial because of the admission of improper evidence.
The court, over the objection of the appellant, permitted the witness, Jess Yancy, Sheriff, who saw the appellant at the funeral home on the afternoon of the killing, to testify as follows:
'Objected to, that calls for an opinion.
Mr. Inman, the Marshal of Bruce, who was with Sheriff Yancy at the funeral home, also gave the following testimony over the objection of the appellant:
'Objected to, we make the same objection to that as we did awhile ago.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. State
...appellant showed no signs of grief, over the objection of the appellant, was improper and highly prejudicial. Harrelson v. State, 217 Miss. 887, 891, 65 So.2d 237, 239 (1953)(allowing officers to testify that a defendant showed no signs of grief). We reversed the conviction of Harrelson bec......
-
Moffett v. State
...leaving the jury free to form its own conclusions.” Davis v. State, 684 So.2d 643, 654 (Miss.1996) (quoting Harrelson v. State, 217 Miss. 887, 65 So.2d 237, 239 (1953) ). Thus, we find no merit in this claim. ¶ 46. Moffett also takes issue with the prosecution's comments made during the Sta......
-
Williams v. State
...conduct of the accused, at the time of and subsequent to the crime are in fact relevant, admissible evidence. Harrelson v. State, 217 Miss. 887, 891, 65 So.2d 237, 239 (1953); Kolb v. State, 542 So.2d at An inquiry into the relevance of evidence must begin with Rule 401 of the Mississippi R......
-
State v. Haga
...However, within the context of this view, certain testimony remains inadmissible as an expression of an opinion. In Harrelson v. State, 217 Miss. 887, 65 So.2d 237 (1953), the conviction of a defendant accused of the murder of his wife was reversed because the testimony of police officers i......