Lewis v. State
| Decision Date | 14 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | 18155 |
| Citation | 68 So. 785,109 Miss. 586 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | LEWIS v. STATE |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Union county. HON. H. K. MAHON Judge.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Cause reversed and remanded.
S. R Knox, for appellant.
An obvious effort of the court to drive the members of the jury into an agreement requires a new trial if they do agree. People of the State of New York v. Sheldon, 41 L. R A. 644. The old rule permitting coercion of a jury in order to secure a verdict has been swept away and under our present method the independence of the jury is represented. Under People v. Sheldon. 41 L. R. A. 648, is cited the case of Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Jackson, 81 Ind. 19, 24 in which after the jury had retired and been out nine hours, the trial court caused the jury to be informed through the bailiff having them in charge that if they did not agree on a verdict, the court would keep them until Saturday night, a period of four days. This was held reversible error.
As to the ninth ground of the assignment of error. Both the court and the bailiff erred in delivering such a message to the jury. The bailiff should have refused to have delivered this message. Shaw v. State, 79 Miss. 577.
The verdict was vitiated by the conduct of the officers. The same rule prevails. It makes no difference whether the influence causes them to abridge their deliberations, or after long and tedious holding out for what each juror proclaims his idea he is forced to decide. These communications are presumed to be prejudicial and necessitates a reversal. Shaw v. State, 79 Miss. 577; Brown v. State, 69 Miss. 398, 10 So. 579.
Suppose the court had not raised in the minds of the jury the expense question of a new trial. It is more than probable that staying as long as they did and being free from that influence there would at least have been liberty until another trial for defendant, as it would have been a hung jury. He did not get a fair trial. State v. Place, 20 So. Dak. 489.
In the Place case, the court said: "Of course it is possible that the action of no juror was influenced by the courts statement, but such statement was so clearly improper and so well calculated to prejudice the rights of accused, we cannot assume that it did not have that effect."
Lamar F. Easterling, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
Counsel next insists that this cause should be reversed because the court erred in refusing to discharge the jury after they had announced that they could not agree and because of certain remarks made by the trial court which were communicated to the jury. The testimony on this point will be found on pages 141 to 146 of the record. Looking at this testimony which was taken on a motion for a new trial it appears that there was considerable dispute and conflict as to what language the court used and what actually took place, and it does, as we think, clearly appear that whatever statement was made by the bailiff to the jury produced no harmful effect at all. In fact we think, as shown by the testimony on pages referred to, that the court committed no sort of error in the matter. This court has, as we think, fully passed on this question in the following cases: May v. State, 54 So. ; Wiltcher v. State, 54 So. 726.
Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary. In this appeal there are numerous assignments of error; but, inasmuch as the judgment of the trial court will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, we do not deem it necessary to discuss more than two of the alleged errors.
It appears that the bailiff in charge of the trial jury, after the case had been submitted to the jury, and after the jury had considered the case for two days without being able to agree upon a verdict, delivered a message to the jury which he told the jury he was instructed by the judge to deliver. This came about in this way: After consulting for two days the jury had not reached an agreement, whereupon the foreman of the jury asked the bailiff to go...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State
... ... construed will carry an implication, how long he intends to ... keep them; nor shall he make any such statement, outside of ... the hearing of the jury, which is carried to them by any ... other officer of the court." ... In that ... opinion we cited the case of Lewis v. State, 109 ... Miss. 586, 68 So. 785, which is very much in point with our ... view of the case at bar. There a bailiff was sent to the ... judge by the jury asking to be discharged, and the bailiff ... returned with an alleged message from the judge that he would ... keep them for another ... ...
-
Edlin v. State
...which was reached three days after the jurors were told they would be kept for a week until they could reach a verdict. Lewis v. State, 109 Miss. 586, 68 So. 785 (1915). Subsequent deliberation of the jury does not demonstrate that the improper message had no coercive effect. The improper m......
-
Haney v. State
... ... up to this time had not clearly defined or formulated a ... definition of the term, our court in this case clearly held ... that, to constitute the declarations or statements a part of ... the res gestae, they must be made during the affray. Lewis v ... The State, 68 So. 785, 109 Miss. 586 ... We ... might cite other authorities on this subject, but we feel ... that from the above decisions, the point under discussion is ... too well settled to require further argument or citation, and ... summing up this point, there can be ... ...
-
Wade v. State
...while in the case here before us the judge, in the substance of what he said and did, told them to the same effect. In Lewis v. State, 109 Miss. 586, 68 So. 785, the jury had been in deliberation for two days, and, it then appearing to the jury that they would not be able to agree, they sen......