Hartley v. State

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Anderson, J.
• Citation: Hartley v. State, 161 Miss. 667, 137 So. 518 (Miss. 1931)
• Decision Date: 09 November 1931
• Docket Number: 29550
• Parties: HARTLEY v. STATE

137 So. 518

161 Miss. 667

HARTLEY v. STATE

No. 29550

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 9, 1931

Division B

1. CRIMINAL LAW.

Instruction that witness' contradictory statements may create reasonable doubt as to truth of witness' testimony, held properly refused as limiting jury's reasoning process.

2. CRIMINAL LAW.

Jury must consider conflicting statements of witness in connection with other evidence, in passing on truth of statements.

3. CRIMINAL LAW.

Instruction that witness' contradictory statements might create reasonable doubt as to truth of witness' testimony, held properly refused as limiting jury's reasoning process.

HON. E L. BRIEN, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Warren county HON. E. L. BRIEN, Judge.

M. A Hartley was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

H. K. Murray, of Vicksburg, for appellant.

The court below erred in refusing to grant the following instruction:

"The court instructs the jury for the defendant that if any witnesses have made contradictory statements as to material facts in this case, this may, in the discretion of the jury, create a reasonable doubt as to the truth of the evidence of such witness."

The doctrine of reasonable doubt must be presented to the jury under our system of jurisprudence to properly present the issue of a criminal trial.

Hunter v. State (Florida), 10 So. 730.

Eugene B. Ethridge, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

The verdict of the jury is supported by such evidence as warrants a finding of guilt and will not be cast aside by a court of appellate jurisdiction.

Ells v. State, 159 Miss. 567; Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561; Witt v. State, 159 Miss. 478; Steward v. State, 154 Miss. 858; Chandler v. State, 143 Miss. 312; Matthews v. State, 148 Miss. 696; Brown v. State, 103 Miss. 639; Jackson v. State, 105 Miss. 782; Wells v. State, 112 Miss. 76; Spight v. State, 120 Miss. 752; Thomas v. State, 129 Miss. 332; Simmons v. State, 109 Miss. 605; Felder v. State, 108 Miss. 580; Dickey v. State, 86 Miss. 525.

The court's refusal of the instruction for defendant was not error.

Where the court has already granted an instruction which sufficiently and accurately covers a proposition of law its refusal of another instruction in different words but attempting to convey the same idea is within its discretion and cannot be complained of.

Reeves v. State, 159 Miss. 498; Wiley v. State, 129 Miss. 196; Reynolds v. State, 136 Miss. 329; Pickett v. State, 140 Miss. 671; Stubblefield v. State, 142 Miss. 787; Patterson v. State, 115 So. 777; Cain v. State, 135 Miss. 892; McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 822; Frazier v. State, 141 Miss. 18; Borders v. State, 138 Miss. 788; Waldrop v. State, 98 Miss. 567.

OPINION

Anderson, J.

Appellant was indicted and convicted in the circuit court of Warren county of the crime of robbery, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of seven years. From that judgment, he prosecutes this appeal.

The appellant assigns and argues as errors the action of the court in refusing to direct a verdict in his favor, and the refusal of an instruction requested on his behalf.

There was no error in refusing to direct a verdict in appellant's favor. Appellant's guilt was purely a question for the jury; there was ample evidence to sustain his conviction. The refused instruction is in this language: "The court instructs the jury for the defendant that if any witnesses have made contradictory statements as to the facts of the case, this may, in the discretion of the jury, create a reasonable doubt as to the truth of the evidence of such witness."

There was no error in refusing this instruction, for two reasons:

(1) It authorized the jury to segregate from the other evidence in the case the testimony of any witness who had made contradictory statements as to any material facts, and determine from the testimony of such witness alone which, if either, of such statements is true.

The effect of the instruction was to exclude from the consideration of the jury the other evidence in the case in determining which of the conflicting statements was true and which was false, or whether either of the conflicting statements was true. By the instruction, the court singled out to the jury any witness who had made conflicting statements as to any material facts, and said to the jury that in their discretion such conflicting statements alone, without regard to the other...