Lee v. State
| Citation | 75 Miss. 625,23 So. 628 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Decision Date | 30 May 1898 |
| Parties | DAVID LEE v. THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
March, 1898
FROM the circuit court of Bolivar county HON. F. A. MONTGOMERY, Judge.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
L. Brame and Sillers, Jones & Owen, for the appellant.
The remarks of the district attorney set out in the motion for new trial were improper, and constitute reversible error. So, also, does the action of the lower court in refusing the second instruction asked by the accused, which followed § 1425, code 1892. The accused was convicted by improper means. Lamar v. State, 64 Miss. 687; Hyman v. State, 74 Miss. 829.
Wiley N. Nash, attorney-general, for the state.
No objection was made by accused or his counsel to the remarks of the district attorney at the time of their utterance. It is very evident that another trial could not change the result, and a new trial should not, therefore, be granted. Garrard v. State, 50 Miss. 148; Barnett v. Dalton, 69 Ib., 617. The verdict is manifestly right, and should stand. Klein v. Smith County, 54 Miss. 254.
The remarks of the district attorney touching the affidavit for continuance seem to have been heard by some of the jury who tried the case. It was certainly not intended by the very efficient representative of the state that the jury should hear them, but, having heard them, it is impossible to say they did not, in conjunction with the remarks as to the affidavit's being a proper witness, prejudice the defendant, especially in view of the refusal of the second instruction asked by the appellant. This instruction was not upon the weight of the evidence. It merely stated the rule of law--the statutory rule--which should guide the jury when the affidavit as to what an absent witness would testify to is before the jury, instead of his oral testimony delivered in person. The instruction should have been given as eminently proper, in view of the fact that Weems was the only eyewitness defendant had. The state's testimony showed Weems was at the scene of the killing, and could have "seen into the room [where deceased was killed] if he had wanted to." In view of this conceded fact, the errors indicated are reversible errors.
Judgment reversed, verdict set aside and cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
House v. State
...v. State, 31 So. 809; Fuller v. State, 85 Miss. 206, 37 So. 749; Hampton v. State, 40 So. 545; Bryant v. State, 33 So. 225; Lee v. State, 75 Miss. 625, 23 So. 628. & Alexander, on the same side. There was no motive shown for the killing. Appellant and deceased were close friends and associa......
-
Hampton v. State
...State v. Thompson, 30 So. 895; Ragland v. State (Ala.), 27 So. 983; Scott v. State (Ala.), 20 So. 468; Lee v. State, 75 Miss. 625 (s.c., 23 So. 628); Anderson v. (Ala.), 16 So. 108; Florence, etc., v. Field (Ala.), 16 So. 538; Jenkins v. State (Fla.), 18 So. 182; Dollar v. State (Ala.), 13 ......
-
Haynes-Walker Lumber Co. v. Hankins
... ... ought to have given a peremptory instruction in favor of the ... appellant as was requested. Fore v. A. & V. R ... R. Co., 39 So. 493; Southern R. R. Co. v ... Elder, 80 So. 333; M. & O. R. R ... Co. v. Bennett, 90 So. 113; Thomas v ... State, 92 So. 225 ... The ... appellant's theory of this wreck was corroborated by one ... eye witness, whose evidence was in every material way in ... harmony with the state of facts here made. There are a half ... dozen physical conditions that are not contradicted by this ... record ... ...
- Miller v. State