Knight v. State, 38338
| Decision Date | 25 February 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 38338,38338 |
| Parties | KNIGHT v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
L. H. Doty, Jo Drake Arrington, Gulfport, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., by J. T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, John W. Knight, was convicted of the murder of one Herman Nolen. The homicide occurred at a place where intoxicating liquors were sold, known as the Rum Boogie Bar, located about two blocks from the appellant's grocery store.
The operator of the Rum Boogie Bar, one Jerrell Irving, had signed for a telegram for his sister-in-law and then asked the said Herman Nolen to deliver the same to her. He carried it to the store of the appellant and left it there, after having failed to find the addressee. Upon his return to the Bar, he reported to Irving the fact that he had been unable to locate the addressee of the telegram, and that he had left it at the store of the appellant. He was immediately told to go and get it. When he returned with the telegram, it was observed that the same had been opened, and Nolen claimed that the appellant had opened it. Thereupon, a telephone call from Irving to the appellant and the conversation that ensued between them had the result of causing the appellant to go at once to the Rum Boogie Bar where he found both Irving and Nolen. The appellant testified that Irving requested him to come to the Bar in connection with the telegram incident, since Nolen and the appellant were each claiming that the other had opened the envelope in which the message was contained. Irving denied that he had invited the appellant to come to the Bar to discuss the matter.
Upon the arrival of appellant, he and Nolen continued to accuse each other and engaged in a heated argument and a quarrel which lasted from ten to fifteen minutes or longer, when the appellant observed that Nolen had a small penknife in his hand, and about which fact there is no dispute in the evidence, but he was then making no effort to use the knife on the appellant, and it is not shown whether he had the same open in his hand before the quarrel began, or took it from his pocket during the quarrel. It was only shown that after the argument and quarrel had been in progress for the period of time aforesaid that the appellant said 'you have a knife', and asked him to 'put it in your pocket.' Nolen did not obey this command, and the jury was warranted in believing from all of the evidence that he did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doss v. State
...read, if the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found. Knight v. State, 57 So.2d 161 (Miss.1952), and Norman v. State, 385 So.2d 1298 Hickombottom v. State, 409 So.2d 1337, 1339 (Miss.1982). ¶26 Naturally then, the State con......
-
Shields v. State, 42239
...State, 165 Miss. 798, 145 So. 749; Carter v. State, 169 Miss. 285, 152 So. 876; Thomas v. State, 200 Miss. 220, 26 So.2d 469; Knight v. State, 57 So.2d 161 (Miss.); Jackson v. State, 218 Miss. 598, 67 So.2d 520; Durham v. State, 158 Miss. 833, 131 So. Finally, it becomes apparent that the f......
-
Norman v. State, 51995
...read the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found. See Knight v. State, 57 So.2d 161 (Miss.1952). It follows that this assignment of error lacks As for Norman's nebulous ninth assignment of error stating that "the case must ......
-
Southland Enterprises, Inc. v. Newton County, 2001-CA-00838-SCT.
...required. Id. (citing Hickombottom v. State, 409 So.2d 1337, 1339 (Miss.1982); Norman v. State, 385 So.2d 1298 (Miss.1980); Knight v. State, 57 So.2d 161 (Miss.1952)). The jury was properly instructed and its verdict should be ¶ 31. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. WALLER, COBB AN......