Johnson v. State

• Decision Date: 16 May 1898
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BEVERLY JOHNSON v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

23 So. 579

75 Miss. 635

BEVERLY JOHNSON v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 16, 1898

March 1898

FROM the circuit court of Noxubee county HON. G. B. HUDDLESTON Judge.

The appellant, Johnson, was indicted for the murder of one Jared Jordan. The instructions for the state, mentioned in the opinion of the court, are as follows:

"1. If the jury believe, from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant, Beverly Johnson, shot and killed Jared Jordan with a pistol, and not in necessary self-defense, they should find the defendant guilty as charged."

"2. The jury are authorized, under the law, in all capital cases to fix the punishment at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for life, where they find the defendant guilty as charged, and, in the event they find the defendant guilty in this case, they may so fix his punishment; and if they so fix it, they should return the following verdict: 'We the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged, and fix his punishment at imprisonment for life in the penitentiary.' If they return a verdict of guilty as charged, but fail to fix the punishment, it will be the duty of the court to sentence the defendant to be hanged. if, however, the jury agree upon the guilt of the defendant, but fail to agree upon the punishment, it is their duty, under the law, to return a verdict of guilty as charged."

The accused having been convicted of murder and sentenced to be hanged, appealed to the supreme court.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

W. B. Stewart, for appellant.

W. N. Nash, attorney-general, for appellee.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, J.

A more unsatisfactory case, on the testimony, was, perhaps, never presented to an appellate tribunal. There was not a charge given on either side as to manslaughter, and yet, on the proof, we think there might have been properly a verdict of manslaughter. We do not mean to say that a verdict of murder would be improper, on the testimony, if there had been no error of law; but, since a verdict of manslaughter might also be upheld, it was, in the distressingly conflicting state of the evidence, to the last degree important that no error of law should have been committed. The third instruction for the state shut the jury up to a verdict of murder or nothing, and was, on the record, reversible error. The first instruction was also, in the state of the record, error, but, as it is nowhere...