Madden v. State
| Decision Date | 05 December 1887 |
| Citation | 65 Miss. 176,3 So. 328 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHN MADDEN v. THE STATE |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Rankin County, HON. A. G. MAYERS Judge.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Judgment reversed and new trial awarded.
E. E Baldwin, for the appellant.
1. It was the duty of the court to have excluded the testimony of Morris, after it appeared on cross-examination that his confession was induced by a hope of reward.
Wharton in his Criminal Evidence, § 689, says:
"If a confession be received in evidence, it not appearing that any inducement had been held out, but at a later period of the trial it appears that such an inducement was held out before the making of the confession as would have rendered it inadmissible, the judge will order the jury to disregard it, or will strike the evidence of the confession out of his notes, and, if there be no other proof of guilt, direct an acquittal." He cited in support of this the following cases, to which we would call special attention:
Earp v. The State, 55 Ga. 136; Cain v. The State, 18 Texas, 387; Metzgar v. The State, 18 Fla. 481.
An examination of these authorities will show that Wharton means, when he speaks of "a confession being received in evidence, " as well the statements of an accomplice testifying for the State, as evidence of confessions made in pais by the prisoner before the trial, and that he puts both on the same footing.
It is evident that this evidence, so allowed to remain for the consideration of the jury, must have had its weight with them in making up their verdict, and we insist the above errors should alone work a reversal.
2. The whole of the evidence in relation to the doings of the vigilance committee was wholly irrelevant.
T. M. Miller, Attorney General for the State, filed a brief, but it could not be found when the record was delivered to the Reporter.
Without intending to hold that no other error exists in the voluminous and confused record in this cause, it is sufficient to note the following.
The appellant and others were indicted for burglary. On the trial, one Morris, indicted for the same offence, was introduced by the State as a witness. He distinctly and fully testified to the guilt of the appellant on direct examination. On cross-examination he stated that some days after the burglary, and while he was confined in jail, he sent for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
... ... ago,' such testimony being wholly incompetent, it was ... error to allow the state to introduce the contradictory ... testimony of one of the persons named as present at the ... time." This decision went into a considerable review of ... the authorities, and cited among others, Madden v ... State, 65 Miss. 176, 3 So. 328; Jones v. State, ... 67 Miss. 111, 7 So. 220, and Jamison v. Illinois C. R ... Co., 63 Miss. 33 ... In ... Kolb v. State, 129 Miss. 834, at page 851, 93 So. 358, ... 361, the rule was discussed, and it was said: "If a ... witness testifies to ... ...
-
Dickey v. State
... ... We admit that it is always proper to ... show flight of the accused, or any act of his which would ... tend reasonably to show guilt, but it is clearly inadmissible ... to establish his guilt by the act of any other person or ... persons, however large may be their number. Madden v ... State, 65 Miss. 176 ... It was ... error for the bailiffs of the jury to be in the room and ... converse with jurors, and for outsiders to communicate with ... them, as shown by the record. Section 729 of the code ... expressly forbids officers to be in the same room with, or ... ...
-
Manning v. State
...impeach a witness whom he has introduced in a civil or criminal case. 70 C. J. 793 and notes; Jarnigan v. Fleming, 43 Miss. 710; Maden v. State, 65 Miss. 176. court has frequently reversed cases where perhaps no one error would have caused the reversal, but the accumulation of many small er......
-
Owens v. State
...had been no charge that anyone, much less the state's attorney, had bribed or persuaded Matthis to testify. 1 Green-leaf, 469; Madden v. State, 65 Miss. 176; Head v. State, 44 Miss. 751, and Williams v. 79 Miss. 555. The fifteenth instruction asked by defendant, and which was refused by the......