Hopkins v. State
| Decision Date | 10 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 38238,38238 |
| Citation | 212 Miss. 772,55 So.2d 467 |
| Parties | HOPKINS v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Homer Pittman, Claude F. Pittman, Hattiesburg, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., by Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appeal is from a conviction of murder, the judgment carrying with it a sentence of life imprisonment.
There is no dispute as to the fact that the accused while seated in a parked car beside his employer fired two fatal shots into the side of the body.
The assignments of error argued include the fact that the accused, an admitted drug addict, had been kept under drugs continually since his arrest. The testimony of physicians vindicated the propriety of such course, it being shown that a too sudden withdrawal of the drug would produce untoward effects, and that the was more normal in his reasoning powers when given limited dosage of the drug.
There were two confessions introduced by the State, one oral and the other written. There was a preliminary hearing as to their admissibility and a showing of their complete voluntary character was not challenged by the accused or any witness in his behalf. Moreover, the written confession is far from prejudicial to the accused since there is incorporated therein his explanation of self-defense. No error is found in their admission.
The two issues of sanity and of guilt were separately heard. Upon extensive testimony by both lay and expert witnesses for both parties, the jury found that the accused was sane. During the hearing of this issue the State introduced Dr. Carroll who had seen the accused at an infirmary and later in jail after his arrest. There was no objection interposed to his testimony at this stage on the ground that he was disclosing privileged communications. Upon he issue of guilt he was recalled to the stand whereupon counsel for the accused stated as follows: 'We are now objecting to Dr. Carroll testifying in this case because of privileged communication, privileged testimony, he is the defendant's doctor, and we are objecting to him testifying.'
The objection was overruled. Whereupon the physician again testified substantially as before upon the issue of sanity repeating that in his opinion the accused was sane and knew right from wrong. However, he went further and stated his finding that the defendant had nephritis, a disease of the kidneys. This ailment was stated to have no present bearing upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Harper
...court or by the prosecution to examine the defendant to determine whether he is mentally competent to stand trial. See Hopkins v. State, 212 Miss. 772, 55 So.2d 467 (1952); Keeton v. State, 175 Miss. 631, 167 So. 68 (1936); Norwood v. State, 158 Miss. 550, 130 So. 733 (1930). See also Hardy......
-
State v. Riggle
...the defendant was sane or insane. People v. Kemmler, 119 N.Y. 580, 24 N.E. 9; People v. Austin, 199 N.Y. 446, 93 N.E. 57; Hopkins v. State, 212 Miss. 772, 55 So.2d 467; Rogers v. State, 222 Miss. 690, 76 So.2d 831; State v. Coleman, 96 W.Va. 544, 123 S.E. (e) Defendant objected to the testi......
-
Hardy v. Riser
...Co. v. Grubbs, 251 Miss. 52, 168 So.2d 289 (1964). 26 8 Wigmore 835; 97 C.J.S. Witnesses § 293, p. 827; 107 A.L.R. 1495. 27 212 Miss. 772, 55 So.2d 467 (1952). 28 175 Miss. 631, 167 So. 68 (1936). 29 158 Miss. 550, 130 So. 733 (1930). 30 United States v. Burdette, 161 F.Supp. 326 (D.C.Mich.......
-
Williamson v. State
...arising out of the relationship of physician and patient does not exist in the case of a court-ordered examination. Hopkins v. State, 212 Miss. 772, 55 So.2d 467 (1951). We are of the opinion that no reversible error was committed under the facts presented in this case. The statements made ......