Mcfatter v. State
| Citation | 113 So. 187,147 Miss. 133 |
| Decision Date | 06 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 26397 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Parties | MCFATTER v. STATE. [*] |
(Division A.)
HOMICIDE. Though defendant claiming self-defense and witness were sole eyewitnesses of the shooting, held there was conflict for jury.
Though defendant and his witness were the only eyewitnesses of the shooting, and they testified that deceased drew a pistol and defendant then shot in self-defense, yet defendant having shortly before gone to his car and got a deadly weapon and threatened to kill deceased, and been contradicted by evidence that deceased was not armed at the time, there was such a material conflict in the evidence as to warrant submission of the case to the jury.
APPEAL from circuit court of Copiah county.
HON. E J. SIMMONS, Judge.
Louis McFatter was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
M. S McNeil, for appellant.
It is our contention that the state wholly failed to make out a case against the appellant, and that the court erred in not sustaining a motion to exclude; and, secondly, that after all of the evidence was introduced, the only explanation of the killing was made by the appellant and the eyewitness, Smith, and this explanation clearly showed that the killing was justifiable and that the court erred in refusing to grant the peremptory instruction to find the appellant not guilty.
Not a witness offered by the state attempts to offer any explanation of the shooting, and not a witness offered by the state was able to deny that the shooting took place in the manner outlined by appellant and his witness. Therefore, we insist, under Gaddis v. State, 110 So. 691, that this case should be reversed and the defendant discharged.
Rufus Creekmore, Special Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
The rule of law laid down in the Gaddis case is sound and where testimony offered by the defendant does make out a case of self-defense, where his testimony is reasonable, is uncontradicted by other testimony in the case, including the physical facts and circumstances, then he is entitled to have the case reversed and to be discharged. The difficulty in the case at bar is that the defendant has not brought himself within the rule of law which is there expounded by the court.
In view of the numerous contradictions on the most essential and material parts of the testimony, can it be said that the jury was not warranted in disbelieving the testimony of the defendant and that of his main witness, Charlie Smith, to the effect that the shooting was in self-defense? We think that the rule of law laid down by this court in McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 822, 104 So. 150, is controlling here. In that case the court held that where the circumstances of justification as set up by the defendant are contradicted by the physical facts in the case or by other testimony, the jury may disbelieve the testimony of the defendant and a conviction under such circumstances will be upheld.
Upon an indictment for murder, McFatter, the appellant, was tried and convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to serve a term of fifteen years in the state penitentiary. From the conviction and sentence he appeals to this court.
Having closely read all the testimony in this case, the brief of appellant, the brief of the attorney-general, and the reply brief, we are of opinion that the facts in this case are wholly unlike the facts in the case of State v. Gaddis (Miss.), 110 So. 691, believing that, in this case, the jury was warranted, by the evidence in the case, in finding the facts against the appellant.
Appellant contends that the testimony of the defendant and of the witness, Charlie Smith (who was the only eyewitness) is a reasonable explanation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vance v. State
...must be submitted to the jury. Smith v. State, 167 Miss. 85, 147 So. 482; Brumfield v. State, 150 Miss. 552, 117 So. 529; McFatter v. State, 147 Miss. 133, 113 So. 187; Grady v. State, 144 Miss. 778, 110 So. McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 822, 104 So. 150. 2. Appellant assigns as error the gra......
-
Ivey v. State
... ... attempted explanation of appellant, who testified in the ... case, were some of the circumstances warranting the ... submission of the case to the jury. Stubblefield v ... State, 142 Miss. 787, 107 So. 663; Grady v ... State, 144 Miss. 778, 110 So. 225; McFatter ... v. State, 147 Miss. 133, 113 So. 187; ... Sullivan v. State (Miss.), 149 Miss. 412, ... 115 So. 552 ... Finding ... no reversible error, the case will be affirmed ... ...
-
Conway v. State
... ... State, 165 Miss. 847, 147 ... So, 780; Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254, 160 So. 584 ... The ... court did not err in refusing to grant a peremptory ... instruction ... McGehee ... v. State, 138 Miss. 822, 104 So. 150; Grady v ... State, 144 Miss. 778, 110 So. 255; McFatter v ... State, 147 Miss. 133, 113 So. 187; Brumfield v ... State, 150 Miss. 552, 117 So. 529; Smith v ... State, 167 Miss. 8-5, 147 So. 482; Thornton v. State, ... 170 So. 541 ... The ... verdict of the jury was not contrary to the weight of the ... evidence and the motion for a ... ...
-
McClure v. State
...whether or not the appellant's account of the facts was reasonable. See Brumfield v. State, 150 Miss. 552, 117 So. 529; McFatter v. State, 147 Miss. 133, 113 So. 187; Grady v. State, 144 Miss. 778, 110 So. McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 822, 104 So. 150, 151. Second, the appellant assigns as e......