Johnson v. State

Decision Date12 April 1920
Docket Number21083
Citation122 Miss. 16,84 So. 140
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesJOHNSON v. STATE

March 1920

PERJURY. Sufficiency of proof of falsity of oath stated.

Before an accused can be convicted under an indictment for perjury the fact that the oath was false must be proved by two witnesses, or by one witness and corroborating circumstances.

HON. C P. LONG, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Alcorn county, HON. C. P. LONG, Judge.

Elmer Johnson was convicted of perjury, and he appeals.

Judgment reversed, and prisoner discharged.

Ely B. Mitchell, for appellant.

N. T. Currie, attorney-general, for the state.

OPINION

STEVENS, J.

Appellant was indicted and convicted of the crime of perjury, and from the judgment of the court sentencing him to two years in the state penitentiary this appeal is prosecuted.

The record shows that, some time prior to the indictment an affidavit was lodged in the mayor's court of the city of Corinth, charging appellant with being a vagrant under section 5055, subsec. (c), Code of 1906; section 3332, Hemingway's Code. Immediately upon arrest of the accused under said affidavit, he was tried by the mayor, and during the progress of the trial the defendant testified in his own behalf. At the conclusion of the trial by the mayor the defendant was promptly convicted and placed under bond on a charge of perjury. Thereafter appellant was indicted in the circuit court on the said charge of perjury, the material charge of the indictment being that appellant as a witness before T. E. Henry, mayor of Corinth, in testifying in his own behalf on the said charge of vagrancy, falsely, feloniously, and willfully swore and gave evidence:

"That he the said Elmer Johnson within the three weeks prior thereto had worked twelve days at manual labor for the Churchill Compress Company, whereas in truth and in fact during the three weeks prior to said day he, the said Elmer Johnson, had not worked twelve days for the said Churchill Compress Company, and had not worked more than two days for the said Churchill Compress Company, or for any other person or corporation, but had been guilty of vagrancy during said time," etc.

On the trial under said indictment, Mr. Henry, the mayor, gave evidence tending to support the charge contained in the indictment, while appellant contends that he did not testify in the mayor's court that he had in fact worked twelve days for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Hogan v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1987
    ...law only. See: Horn v. State, 186 Miss. 455, 191 So. 282 (1939); Gordon v. State, 158 Miss. 185, 128 So. 769 (1930); Johnson v. State, 122 Miss. 16, 84 So. 140 (1920); Lee v. State, 105 Miss. 539, 62 So.2d 360 (1913); Saucier v. State, 95 Miss. 226, 48 So. 840 (1909); Whittle v. State, 79 M......
  • State v. Breyer
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1925
    ... ... the court virtually made of the wife a witness against her ... Many ... authorities hold that the marital privilege protected by this ... statute excludes extrajudicial utterances as well as judicial ... utterances. ( Johnson v. State, 122 Miss. 16, 84 So ... 140; Nat. German-American Bank v. Lawrence, 77 Minn ... 282, 79 N.W. 1016, 80 N.W. 363; Tacket v. May, 33 ... Ky. 79, 3 Dana 79; State v. Richardson, 194 Mo. 326, ... 92 S.W. 649; State v. Reid, 178 N.C. 745, 101 S.E ... 104; Bennett v. State, 80 ... ...
  • Hammer v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1926
    ...317, 324; People v. Kennedy, 221 Mich. 1, 4, 190 N. W. 749; State v. Storey, 148 Minn. 398, 182 N. W. 613, 15 A. L. R. 629; Johnson v. State, 122 Miss. 16, 84 So. 140; State v. Hardiman, 277 Mo. 229, 233, 209 P. 879; State v. Gibbs, 10 Mont. 213, 219, 25 P. 289, 10 L. R. A. 749; Gandy v. St......
  • Hall v. State, 98-KA-00746-COA.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • September 7, 1999
    ...alternative and have not disavowed the rule's application. See generally Lea v. State, 64 Miss. 278, 1 So. 235 (1887); Johnson v. State, 122 Miss. 16, 84 So. 140 (1920); Gordon v. State, 158 Miss. 185, 128 So. 769 (1930); Horn v. State, 186 Miss. 455, 191 So. 282 (1939); Clanton v. State, 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT