Kellum v. State

• Decision Date: 31 January 1887
• Citation: Kellum v. State, 1 So. 174, 64 Miss. 226 (Miss. 1887)
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: SIMON KELLUM v. THE STATE

1 So. 174

64 Miss. 226

SIMON KELLUM v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 31, 1887

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Clay County, HON. W. M. ROGERS Judge.

Simon Kellum was indicted for grand larceny. He was tried and convicted. The verdict of the jury was as follows: "We the jury, find the defendt" [or defendd] "guilty as charged in the bill of indictment." The defendant excepted to this verdict, and judgment having been rendered thereon, appealed to this court.

Affirmed.

Fred. Beall, for the appellant.

Our statute is silent on what a verdict shall contain. We must therefore look to the common law and test this verdict by the principles of the common law. The verdict of the jury in this case does not name the defendant; it does not appear from the record that the verdict was written out, or, if written whether on the indictment or on another piece of paper, it does not state of what they found the defendant guilty, but only "guilty AS charged in the bill of indictment." Not guilty of the crime charged in the bill, etc.

This falls very far short of what was required at common law. 2 Hawkins Pleas of the Crown 622 and note 2; Clay v. The State, 43 Ala. 350; Levison v. The State, 54 Ala. 520; The People v. Ah Good, 53 Cal. 627; The State v. Belte, 76 N.C. 10; The State v. Blue, 84 N.C. 807; The State v. Lowry, 74 N.C. 121.

T. M. Miller, Attorney General, for the State.

Trifling errors which cannot mislead and are evidently clerical afford no ground for an arrest of judgment. Comm. v. McMahon, 133 Mass. 394.

Defendant's name in the indictment was "Rich," in the verdict "Richard." Held, immaterial. State v. Dodson, 16 S.C. 453.

The law does not require jurors to be philologists. A verdict, therefore, finding the defendant guilty of "mansluder" was held to be valid. State v. Smith, 33 La. Ann. 33.

A verdict fixing the punishment at two years in the State "penitenilery" held valid. Hoy v. State, 11 Tex.App. 32.

The charge may be looked to and considered in determining questions involving the import of a verdict. Vincent v. State, 10 Tex.App. 330.

"We, the jury, find the defendant guilty to the amount of thirteen dollars." Sustained in trial for larceny. Timmons v. State, 56 Miss. 786.

In applying the rule that a verdict is not to be avoided unless from necessity, originating in doubt as to its import, immateriality of the issue, or tendency to work injustice, reference is to be had to the specific offense charged, and to the question whether a conviction thereon could be successfully pleaded in bar of a second prosecution. Bland v. State, 4 Tex.App. 15.

OPINION

ARNOLD, J.

The judgment is assailed in this case on the ground that the verdict was defective and insensible. The only objections made to the verdict is that in it the jury used the word "defendd" instead of defendant, and thereby failed to designate the prisoner. We are unable to determine from the record whether the abbreviation employed by the jury is "defendd" or "defendt," but whether it is the one or the other is immaterial.

There is no technical form of words in which a verdict is required to be rendered. Any words which convey, beyond reasonable doubt, the meaning and intention of the jury are sufficient, and all fair intendments will be made to support the verdict. 1 Bish. Cr. Pro., § 1005a; The State v. Ryan, 13 Minn. 370; Singleton & True v. Sodusky, 30 Ky. 341, 7 J.J. Marsh. 341.

From the language used by the jury in this case there can be no doubt what they meant by their verdict. They were trying the appellant, and the only issue before them was whether he was guilty or not. Omitting what is objected to in the verdict and their response to that issue was, "guilty as charged in the bill of...