Johnson v. State

• Citation: 30 So. 39,79 Miss. 42
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Decision Date: 08 April 1901
• Parties: RANSOM JOHNSON v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

30 So. 39

79 Miss. 42

RANSOM JOHNSON v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 8, 1901

FROM the circuit court of Bolivar county. HON. FRANK E. LANKIN Judge.

Jackson the appellant, was indicted by the grand jury of Tunica county for the murder of one Ernest Mathews; on defendant's application, the venue was changed to the circuit court of Bolivar county. Defendant was there tried convicted of murder and sentenced to death, from which conviction and sentence he appealed to the supreme court.

The only eye-witness to the killing testified that the homicide occurred about 10 o'clock at night in a tent; that he with four or five others--all negroes--were in the tent engaged in shooting craps, when Ernest Mathews, the deceased, a white man, entered the tent where the crap game was going on, and challenged the negroes to play craps with him; that Mathews took charge of the dice, rolling them, and challenging any of the negroes to bet him 25 cents on the result of his throw of the dice; that appellant finally accepted the challenge, and threw his 25 cents upon a table; that Mathews rolled the dice, and won; that Mathews then challenged appellant to bet 50 cents, and that appellant placed on the table only 25 cents, when Mathews again rolled the dice and won; that Mathews then declared that he had won 25 cents more than he had received, and demanded of appellant the payment of same; that Mathews drew his pistol and placed it on the table, when appellant seized the pistol by the handle, and that at the same time Mathews seized it by the barrel, and that, after struggling over the pistol for some time, appellant wrenched it from Mathews' hands, struck him in the face with it, then shot him three times in rapid succession, which shots resulted in the death of Mathews. The first, tenth and eleventh instructions asked for defendant and refused by the court are as follows:

(1) "The court instructs the jury that, as a matter of law, under the evidence of the witnesses in this cause, the defendant cannot be convicted of murder; and, further, that he can be convicted of no graver crime than manslaughter; and he can be convicted of manslaughter only if the jury believe, from all the evidence in the case, that the killing was done in the heat of passion, and in a cruel and unusual manner, without authority of law, and not in necessary self-defense."

(10) "If, after reviewing all the evidence in the case, the jury entertains a reasonable doubt as to whether or not, at the time the pistol shot was fired, the defendant and the deceased were scuffling for the possession of the pistol, and that it was fired accidentally during such scuffle, and without intention to take life, then the jury must acquit."

(11) "If, after reviewing all the evidence in the case, the jury believe that the fatal shot was fired by Johnson when he had cause to believe, and did believe, that he was in imminent and immediate danger of being killed by Mathews, or of receiving great bodily harm at the bands of Mathews, then the jury must acquit, even though it may now appear that the defendant was not at the time in imminent and immediate danger of being killed by Mathews, or of receiving any great bodily harm at his hands."

Reversed and remanded.

E. H. Moore and O. G. McGuire, for appellant.

The fourth instruction for the state makes every unlawful intentional killing murder. If it be correct, manslaughter is impossible: The instruction was radically wrong. The fifth instruction asked by d...