Klyce v. State

Decision Date29 October 1900
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesBOWEN 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:

"1. The court charges the jury that manslaughter is the killing of a human being without malice, in the heat of passion, but in a cruel and unusual manner, without authority of law and not in necessary self-defense, or the killing of a human being in the heat of passion, without malice, by the use of a dangerous weapon, without the authority of law and not in necessary self-defense; and if the jury believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant so killed McAfee, they will return the following verdict 'We the jury find the defendant guilty of manslaughter.'"

The third instruction given for the state:

"3. The court charges the jury that while it is true that the state must make out its case beyond a reasonable doubt, yet it is also true that the doubt which should induce a jury to withhold a verdict of guilty must be a reasonable one, must be a doubt for which a reason can be given, a doubt which reasonably arises out of all the evidence in the case or from the want of evidence."

The twenty-first instruction asked by defendant and refused:

"21. Every citizen of this state has a perfect right, under the laws thereof, to own arms and to use them in a lawful manner and the mere fact that the defendant was in possession of a pistol at the time of the killing amounts to no evidence of his guilt, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the jury that he had it at the time of the fatal difficulty, and intended to unlawfully use it in the conflict which resulted in the killing of the deceased."

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.

"A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an instruction asked, embodying a principle of law applicable to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Vance v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 12 Septiembre 1938
    ...... 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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 3 Diciembre 1910
    ...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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 3 Septiembre 1947
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 2 Julio 1924
    ...... 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. ......
  • 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