Martin v. State
Decision Date | 23 February 1948 |
Docket Number | 36435. |
Citation | 33 So.2d 825,203 Miss. 187 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | MARTIN v. STATE. |
Alexander & Feduccia, of Cleveland, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and John Kuykendall Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant appeals from a conviction of assault with intent to murder his father. The record presents a substantial issue of fact for the jury.
We have considered the assignment relating to the State's only instruction. Its concluding clause 'and this is true regardless of every other fact and circumstance in this case' has been condemned many times. Cole v State, 172 Miss. 19, 159 So. 296, 298; Earl v State, 168 Miss. 124, 151 So. 172. We are of the opinion, however, that the issues and controlling principles were sufficiently set out in the instructions as a whole and that no reversible error was committed.
Complaint is made of the allegedly intemperate remarks of the special prosecutor during cross-examination. We conclude that the consistent exclusion thereof by the trial judge denied to these over-zealous comments any substantial prejudice to the defendant.
The conduct and exclamations of the prosecuting witness made shortly after the assault are made the basis of an assignment of error. The witness was allegedly fleeing from the defendant after having been wounded by him, and was seeking refuge in a neighbor's home. We are of the opinion that this testimony concerned verbal acts and was closely associated with the assault, and were followed almost immediately by the appearance of the defendant who was still armed with the weapon theretofore used, and were not objectionable.
The most serious assignment relates to the introduction of a letter written by the wife to the prosecuting witness who was then in a hospital under treatment for the wounds caused by the defendant. The husband sought to waive the privilege as such, but counsel for the defendant objected to its introduction, on behalf of the wife and the defendant.
We hold that the letter was a privileged communication and ought not to have been admitted. The basic inquiry, however, is whether the defendant may assign the error upon appeal. The privilege is for the protection of the husband and wife and the marital relationship. As such it ought to be respected whether either spouse is a party or not. Carter v. State, 167 Miss. 331, 145 So. 739. The error in its admission, however, is one against the wife who was a witness. The defendant is in no position to complain of the error on appeal unless of course the letter is otherwise inadmissible. Upon the latter point, appellant stresses only its inherent privilege stating that the 'letter was prejudicial to the rights of the defendant, the same being incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.'
It is stated in Wigmore on Evidence, Section 2196: '* * * The party against whom the testimony is brought has no right to claim or to urge the exemption on his own behalf; and, on the witness' behalf, the Court is to be left to accord the protection if it is a proper one.
* * *'
This principle is supported by many authorities, among which are State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89, 100 A. 64; Matthews v. McNeill, 98 Kan. 5, 157 P. 387; Thrasher v. State, 92 Neb. 110, 138 N.W. 120 Ann.Cas.1913E, 882; Vickers v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 182, 242 S.W. 1032; Victor v. Commonwealth, 221 Ky. 350, 298 S.W. 936; White v. White, 101 Minn. 451, 112 N.W. 627; Coles v. Harsch, 129 Ore. 11, 276 P. 248; Underhill, Criminal Evidence, Section 349; 70 C.J., Witnesses, Section 619, p. 456. In line with these decisions are those of this Court which have held that in a murder case a defendant may not set up for error the admission of a privileged...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Fisher
...155 S.E. 452 (1930), (letters between a husband and his wife turned over by her to a third party were inadmissible); Martin v. State, 203 Miss. 187, 33 So.2d 825 (1948) (admission of letter from wife of witness to witness In Commonwealth v. Fisher, 221 Pa. 538, 70 A. 865 (1908), the Supreme......
-
Western Fire Truck v. Emergency One
...or to complain about an error on the part of the trial judge in overruling the witness's attempt to assert it"'); Martin v. State, 203 Miss. 187, 33 So.2d 825 (1948)(same); Torkelson v. Byrne, 68 N.D. 13, 276 N.W. 134, 139 (1937)(quoting Cloyes v. Thayer & Morse, 3 Hill 564, 1842 WL 5105 (N......
-
State v. Motes
...126 N.Y. 249, 27 N.E. 362; People v. Melski, 10 N.Y.2d 78, 217 N.Y.S.2d 65, 176 N.E.2d 81 (1961). See also Martin v. Mississippi, 203 Miss. 187, 33 So.2d 825, 2 A.L.R.2d 640; Dalton v. People, 68 Colo. 44, 189 P. 37; Hunter v. Hunter, 169 Pa.Super. 498, 83 A.2d 401. Under what I deem to be ......
-
Fidelity Nat. Bank v. CENTER MANAGEMENT, INC., Civ. A. No. J83-0034(R).
...in any such other instances." Clearly, the privilege is applicable to the facts sub judice. In Martin v. State, 203 Miss. 187, 33 So.2d 825, 827 (1948) (Griffith, J., specially concurring), the policy behind the privilege was Communications between husband and wife made under the sanctity o......