McDonald v. State
| Decision Date | 27 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45196,45196 |
| Citation | 218 So.2d 21 |
| Parties | Saul (Sol) McDONALD, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Zachary & Weldy, Hattiesburg, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Indicted for murdering his brother, Saul McDonald, Jr., was tried in the Circuit Court of Perry County and found guilty of manslaughter.
Appellant and deceased had been visiting various places and drinking prior to arriving at the Stardust Cafe about 2:00 A.M. on Sunday where they had an argument about a family matter. Both drew knives. The proprietor then ordered appellant out of the cafe and appellant returned in a short time with a shotgun. He walked over to the counter where deceased was eating and brought the shotgun down on the counter with enough force to splinter the stock and bend the barrel. The deceased dodged the blow but the gun struck the plate out of which he was eating. The deceased got up and started around the counter toward appellant when the gun, being held by appellant, discharged and fatally shot the deceased. Some of the witnesses stated that the deceased had a knife in his hand when he walked toward appellant. Others said he did not. Appellant testified he was not afraid of his brother. 'I did not have any reason to be afraid of him.' He also testified, At the time of the shooting, according to appellant, the proprietor of the Stardust Cafe was coming in with a pistol. Appellant's defense was that he did not intend to kill his brother, that it was an accident. The evidence amply supports this verdict.
Appellant's first proposition is that the trial court erred in declining to admit testimony offered by appellant that the deceased was a violent man and had a reputation for carrying a knife and for using it on various occasions. This argument is based on the further contention that appellant was relying on the defense of self defense. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in this argument for two reasons. First, his defense was that the fatal shooting was an accident, not self defense. He so testified and stated that he was not afraid of his brother and did not have any reason to be. Second, the testimony tendered by appellant involved specific acts of pulling knives on people, a part of which was admitted. The court allowed several witnesses to testify that deceased pulled a knife on them, but would not admit testimony involving other persons. As stated in Shinall v. State, 199 So.2d 251 (Miss.1967), testimony of antecedent specific acts of violence between deceased and third persons to a homicide are not admissible to show the bad reputation of deceased. No foundation was laid to qualify and so-called character witnesses. No attempt was made to prove the general reputation of deceased in the community in which he lived for the trait of violence.
The second proposition is based upon questions propounded by the district attorney to prospective jurors on voir dire. It is contended that the race issue was improperly injected into the case when the district attorney asked jurors whether the jurors had any different set of rules for colored people and for white, and whether the jurors would let the fact that appellant was a colored man enter into the case at all. Appellant cites no case in support of his contention that this was error. All parties involved in this case are Negroes, and we do not think the race issue was injected into the case or that the questions probably had any adverse effect on appellant's case. The trial court has considerable discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jacoby, 59756
...2 Md.App. 565, 568-569, 235 A.2d 751, 753 (1967); State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133, 134, 221 N.W.2d 563, 564 (1974); McDonald v. State, 218 So.2d 21, 23 (Miss.1969); State v. Stewart, 529 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Mo.App.1975); Broz v. State, 4 Tenn.Cr.App. 457, 463, 472 S.W.2d 907, 910 (1971), cert......
-
State v. Miranda
...539 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Colo.); State v. Jacoby, supra, 838; Henderson v. State, 234 Ga. 827, 829-30, 218 S.E.2d 612; McDonald v. State, 218 So.2d 21, 22-23 (Miss.); State v. Infantolino, supra. On the other hand, in similar circumstances a growing number of jurisdictions have recognized an ex......
-
Ray v. State, 51654
...acts of violence between the deceased and third persons are not admissible to show the bad reputation of the deceased. McDonald v. State, 218 So.2d 21 (Miss.1969); Shinall, supra, and King v. State, 65 Miss. 576, 5 So. 97 (1888). Defendant was permitted to introduce evidence by several witn......
-
Weeks v. State
...was not before the jury. Weed v. State, 406 So.2d 24 (Miss.1981); Fournet v. State, 392 So.2d 1154, 1156 (Miss.1981); McDonald v. State, 218 So.2d 21, 22 (Miss.1969). Clearly a trial judge has considerable discretion as to relevancy and admissibility of evidence and unless this judicial dis......