Klyce v. State
Decision Date | 29 October 1900 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | BOWEN KLYCE v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
October 1900
FROM the circuit court of Alcorn county HON. EUGENE O. SYKES Judge.
The appellant, Bowen Klyce, was indicted for the murder of one Elmer McAfee; was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of twenty-five years, from which he appealed to the supreme court. The evidence was conflicting as to who was the aggressor in the fight. The other facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The instructions referred to in the opinion are as follows:
The first instruction given for the state:
The third instruction given for the state:
The twenty-first instruction asked by defendant and refused:
Reversed and remanded.
Monroe McClurg, attorney-general, for appellee.
The appellant is guilty of murder, as shown by the evidence, and ought to congratulate himself that he was only convicted of manslaughter. The first instruction given for the state substantially follows the statute, and while it needlessly refers to a killing in a "cruel and unusual manner, " yet this is clearly insufficient to warrant a reversal.
The instruction undertaking to define a reasonable doubt, if erroneous, should not cause a reversal. Taylor v. State, 52 Miss. 84; Hale v. State, 72 Miss. 140; Fleming v. State, 60 Miss. 434; Knight v. State, 74 Miss. 140; Herman v. State, 75 Miss. 340.
The twenty-first instruction asked by appellant and refused by the court below was too broad in its terms. While the possession of the pistol alone does not prove defendant's guilt, yet it was evidence from which, with the other facts in the case, the jury were to determine the defendant's guilt or innocence.
W. J. Lamb, for appellant.
The first charge given the state is a definition of manslaughter, and, while the charge is taken from the statute, yet the first part of it is wholly inapplicable to this case and was misleading, because there was no evidence to support this part of the charge. It tells the jury that manslaughter "is the killing of a human being without malice, in the heat of passion, but in a cruel or unusual manner, without authority of law and not in necessary self-defense. " While this is technically true, it cannot have application in this case, as there is no proof, nor is there any attempt to prove, that Klyce killed McAfee in a cruel or unusual manner. Layton v. State, 56 Miss. 791; Hogan v. State, 46 Miss. 274; Collins v. State, 71 Miss. 691; Fortenberry v. State, 55 Miss. 403; Green v. State, 28 Miss. 688; Evans v. State, 44 Miss. 774.
The third charge attempts to give a definition of reasonable doubt. Such instructions have been condemned by this court, as will be seen by a reference to the following cases: Brown v. State, 72 Miss. 95; Burt v. State, 72 Miss. 410; Webb v. State, 73 Miss. 460; Powers v. State, 74 Miss. 779; Hammond v. State, 74 Miss. 214.
This charge falls under the same condemnation as the one given in the case of Powers v. State, 74 Miss. 779, wherein the court says: "'Precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little, ' is one method of inculcating legal truths, as it is of teaching spiritual truths, and we patiently and hopefully await the result of this method of winning bench and bar to a recognition of and acquiescence in the judgments of this court."
Such a definition of a reasonable doubt as the one given in this case has been condemned by a number of courts of last resort. Siberry v. State, 103 Ind. 677; State v. Sauer, 38 Minn. 438; Roy v. State, 50 Ala. 104; Morgan v. State, 48 Ohio St., 371; Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749; Cowan v. State, 22 Neb. 519; Commonwealth v. Webster, 52 Am. Dec., 711, S. C. 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., 781; Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 194.
The court below erred in refusing to give charge No. 21, asked by the appellant. The charge as asked correctly stated the law applicable to the facts, and should have been given.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vance v. State
...... unusual manner." The court had no right to so assume or. to express to the jury its own conviction that the killing. was done in a cruel and unusual manner. Such an instruction,. besides assuming facts not proven, is clearly on the weight. of the evidence. . . Klyce. v. State, 78 Miss. 450; Johnson v. State, 78 Miss. 627, 29 So. 515. . . This. instruction also fails to advise the jury as to the quantum. of proof necessary to a conviction of manslaughter. . . Walters. v. State, 176 Miss. 790; Jones v. State, 84 Miss. 194, ......
-
Dickerson v. State
...519; Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749; People v. Stubenvail, 62 Mich. 329; Brown v. State, 105 Ind. 385; Harvey v. State, 125 Ala. 47; Klyce v. State, 78 Miss. 450.) We submit that this erroneous instruction is sufficient to cause a reversal of the case. Prosecutors should learn that the term "re......
-
Owens v. Commonwealth
...for a reversal. State v. Morey, 25 Or. 241, 35 P. 655, 36 P. 573, 577, 578; State v. Newman, 93 Minn. 393, 101 N.W. 499; Klyce v. State, 78 Miss. 450, 28 So. 827. The precise matter docs not seem to have been previously presented to this court, but we are impressed with the reasoning of the......
-
State v. Bubis
...... error to require jury to be able to assign a reason for. reasonable doubt. (Owens v. United States, 130 F. 222, 64 C. C. A. 525; Bennett v. State, 95 Ark. 100,. 128 S.W. 851; Blue v. State, 86 Neb. 189, 125 N.W. 136; State v. Cohen, 108 Iowa 208, 75 Am. St. 213,. 78 N.W. 857; Klyce v. State, 78 Miss. 450, 28 So. 827; State v. Parks, 96 N.J.L. 360, 115 A. 305;. Morgan v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 45, 121 P. 1088; Cowan. v. State, 22 Neb. 519, 35 N.W. 405.). . . A. H. Conner, Attorney General, and James L. Boone, Assistant, for. Respondent. . . Admission. ......