Holloman v. State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1928
• Docket Number: 27211
• Citation: 151 Miss. 202,117 So. 532
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: HOLLOMAN v. STATE. [*]

117 So. 532

151 Miss. 202

HOLLOMAN v. STATE. ^[*]

No. 27211

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 11, 1928

Division A

ARSON. Evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction for arson.

Evidence in prosecution for the crime of arson held insufficient to sustain conviction.

HON. R S. HALL, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Jones county, First district, HON. R S. HALL, Judge.

Lorenz Holloman was convicted of arson, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Case reversed and remanded.

Haralson & Hall, for appellant.

We think that the circuit judge should have sustained the motion of the appellant, in that the defendant should be dismissed on the grounds that the state had failed to make a case out against the appellant. We base this on the following cases, to-wit: In Strong v. State (Miss.), 23 So. 392, the court speaking through Judge TERRALL: "At the November term, 1897, of the circuit court of De Soto county, Gilbert Strong was convicted of arson and was sentenced to the penitentiary for seven years. It was in evidence that the barn and stable of J. B. West, situated in said county was destroyed by fire on the 10th of April, 1896, and that Gilbert Strong had threatened to commit such act. The evidence connecting Gilbert with the burning of the barn and stable, was at most only suspicious, and insufficient to support a conviction, in our judgment. Wherefore the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and a new trial granted."

In Luker v. State, 14 So. 259, the court speaking through Judge COOPER: "We find no error of law in this record, but are constrained to hold, notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, and its approval by the learned judge before whom the trial was had, that the evidence is not sufficiently strong to uphold the conviction. The evidence is wholly circumstantial, and consists of the facts that there was no good feeling existing between the appellant and the owner of the cotton pen burned, by whom appellant had been prosecuted as a defaulting road hand; that some threats had been made by the appellant to get even with him, and also tracks about the size of appellant's were found around the pen when it was burned, which tracks were followed to the public road leading towards appellant's house and some distance along the road in that direction. But motive alone is not proof of crime, and we think it impossible to say that the evidence as a whole does more than raise a suspicion of appellant's guilt. Reversed."

Rufus Creekmore, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

The testimony here which connects the appellant with the commission of the offense may be briefly recapitulated as follows: 1. The bad feeling between the appellant and Mr. Shows which culminated in the making of threats by the appellant. 2. His efforts to get another person to assist him in the burning of the barn. 3. The tracks which were made by him to the rear of the barn where the fire started. 4. The testimony of the bloodhounds who were put on the trail at the source of the criminal agency and their following this trail, to the defendant. This certainly is sufficient to show that this defendant was the guilty party.

OPINION

MCGOWEN, J.

The appellant, Lorenz Holloman, was indicted and convicted of the crime of arson, and was sentenced to serve a term of one year in the Industrial Training School.

The essential facts of the case are that, on the night of November 1, 1928, the barn of Rolan Shows, a farmer, was destroyed by fire, which fire was discovered by Mr. Shows about two o'clock in the morning. At the time the fire was discovered, the barn had burned to such extent that it, together with its contents, the live stock and farming implements, were destroyed.

At the time of the fire, Mr. Shows had insurance in the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars, and afterwards collected one thousand one hundred fifty dollars of said insurance.

At the time of the fire, his wagon, his automobile, and one of his mules, named Maud, were not in the barn. The wagon was loaded with pine knots, his son was off on a trip in the automobile, and the mule was in the pasture.

There was no effort on the part of the state to show any unusual noise...