Lawson v. State
| Decision Date | 02 April 1906 |
| Citation | 87 Miss. 562,40 So. 325 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILLIAM LAWSON v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
November 1905
FROM the circuit court of Warren county, HON. OLIVER W. CATCHINGS Judge.
Lawson the appellant, was indicted and tried for and convicted of burglary, and appealed to the supreme court.
The court below refused an instruction asked by the defendant in these words:
"The court instructs the jury that each juror should base his verdict on the law and the evidence of the case, and should not consent to a verdict merely because it is the verdict of some other juror, or even a majority of the jurors, but his verdict must be based upon the law and the evidence of the case."
The facts are clearly inferable from the opinion of the court.
Affirmed.
T. D Marshall, for appellant.
Surely the instruction is the law, and should have been given. It is abstract law, it is true, but nevertheless it is applicable to the case. The law as to reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence, and burden of proof is abstract law, but instructions stating these abstractions are always given. A refusal to give such instructions when requested constitutes error. Yet they are no more the law than is the rule requiring a juror to base his verdict on the law and the evidence, and not on the opinion or desires of other jurors. How can this law be communicated to the jury except by such an instruction? How can counsel argue this law to the jury unless the court has given it? If it has been refused, and counsel should attempt to argue on that line, could not the district attorney, in his closing argument, retort that the court has refused such an instruction?
The court knows from common experience and knowledge the tendency of jurors to yield to verdicts, merely because a majority of the jurors want such a verdict and because the juror cannot stand the odium of keeping his fellow-jurors locked up. Has not the defendant a right to an instruction pointing out the illegality and unfairness of such a yielding to the wishes of other jurors? Besides, under our law, which requires the unanimous verdict of twelve men, had not the defendant the right to make an appeal founded on instruction, not only to the jury as a whole, but to the conscience and intellect of each individual juror? Such an instruction has been upheld or the refusal to give it condemned, in the following cases: State v. Witt, 43 Kan. 488; Grimes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilliam v. State
... ... v. State, 176 Miss. 873, 170. So. 534; Millette v ... State, 167 Miss. 172, 148 So. 788; Speaks v ... State, 161 Miss. 334, 136 So. 921; Thomas v ... State, 103 Miss. 800, 60 So. 781; Bell v ... State, 89 Miss. 810, 42 So. 542; Ammons v ... State, 89 Miss. 369, 42 So. 165; Lawson v. State, 87 ... Miss. 562, 40 So. 325 ... The ... court erred in refusing to grant the following instruction ... for the defendant: "The court instructs the jury for the ... defendant that if there be any fact or circumstance in this ... case susceptible of two interpretations, one ... ...
-
Easter v. State
... ... with his fellow-jurors, there is a single juror who has a ... reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, it is his duty, ... under his oath, to stand by his conviction and favor a ... verdict of not guilty so long as he entertains such ... doubt." Lawson v. State, 87 Miss. 562, 40 So ... 325; Ammons v. State, 89 Miss. 369, 42 So. 165; ... Bell v. State, 89 Miss. 810, 42 So. 542, 119 ... Am.St.Rep. 722, 11 Ann.Cas. 431; Thomas v. State, ... 103 Miss. 800, 60 So. 781; Speaks v. State, 161 ... Miss. 334, 136 So. 921; Millette v. State, 167 Miss ... ...
-
Cartle v. State
...136 So. 921; Sanford v. State, 125 So. 726; Thomas v. State, 60 So. 781; Bell v. State, 42 So. 542; Ammons v. State, 42 So. 165; Lawson v. State, 40 So. 325. In giving of the instruction on the presumption of innocence to the state, the state attempted to limit or qualify the well recognize......
-
Thomas v. State
... ... refusal of such an instruction in the case of Ammons v ... State, 89 Miss. 369, was error, and so held by this ... court. This case will be distinguished from the case at bar ... later on in this brief ... This ... court, in the case of William Lawson v. State, 87 ... Miss. 562, 40 So. 325, has held: "The refusal of an ... instruction in a criminal case propounded a mere truism, as ... one to the effect that each juror should base his verdict on ... the law and the evidence and not consent to a verdict merely ... because it is the verdict ... ...