McKnight v. State

• Decision Date: 05 November 1934
• Docket Number: 31344
• Citation: 171 Miss. 152,157 So. 351
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MCKNIGHT v. STATE

157 So. 351

171 Miss. 152

MCKNIGHT v. STATE

No. 31344

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 5, 1934

(In Banc.)

1. CRIMINAL LAW.

Where defendant desires to predicate error on absence of witnesses who would give opinion as to defendant's sanity, such witnesses should be produced or their affidavits obtained on motion for new trial.

2. CRIMINAL LAW.

Error if any, in admitting confession in murder prosecution, was cured where defendant took stand and admitted killing.

HON. R L. CORBAN, Judge.

APPEAL from the circuit court of Adams county HON. R. L. CORBAN Judge.

Obediah McKnight was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. H. Keyer, O. M. Homsby and Kennedy & Geisen-berger, all of Natchez, for appellant.

It is not every type of insanity that is detectable upon casual or little observation by the layman. As soon as possible after learning circumstances of the case attorneys for the defendant interviewed Dr. Francis Dixon and later Dr. J. C. Rice in regard to giving expert medical testimony.

It was not until after subpoena for medical witness, Dr. J. C. Rice, had been issued and court had convened on the morning of the trial of this cause and after the state had started with the jury, and attempt made to find other qualified witnesses, that it was discovered that such witness or witnesses could not be obtained.

Section 1263, Code of 1930.

The defendant did not have opportunity to obtain other qualified experts after learning of the inability of the named physicians to appear. The defendant was not obliged to obtain the testimony of just any physician but had the right to the testimony of those physicians who were best qualified to give evidence relative to mental diseases.

While the motion for a continuance was not offered until after the state had commenced to impanel the jury, it was not possible to do so at an earlier date for as shown by the record the attorneys for the defense were occupied in impanelling the jury and in attempting to secure other expert witnesses in the hope of averting the necessity of a continuance of the cause.

Scott v. State, 80 Miss. 197; Watson v. State, 81 Miss. 701; Caldwell v. State, 85 Miss. 384; Walker v. State, 129 Miss. 449; Childs v. State, 146 Miss. 794.

The court committed error in admitting over the objection of the defendant certain testimony of certain prosecuting witnesses relative to an alleged confession by the defendant without first ascertaining the competency thereof out of the hearing of the jury.

Simmons v. State, 61 Miss. 243; Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44 (overruling Garrard v. State, 50 Miss. 147); Williams v. State, 72 Miss. 117; Blalock v. State, 79 Miss. 517; Lee v. State, 137 Miss. 329; Hathorn v. State, 138 Miss. 11; Whip v. State, 143 Miss. 757; Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116; Fletcher v. State, 159 Miss. 41.

If, after the evidence relative to an alleged confession has gone to the jury, it appears that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not such alleged confession was voluntary and free on the part of the defendant, the court should instruct the jury to disregard the evidence on such point.

Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44.

W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

Waiving aside the discretion of the trial judge to grant or refuse the application for a continuance in a capital case, where the special venire has already been drawn (section 1263, Mississippi Code of 1930) it does not appear that proper diligence on the part of the defendant has been shown.

Lamar v. State, 63 Miss. 265; Ware v. State, 133 Miss. 837, 98 So. 229; Coward v. State, 158 Miss. 705, 131 So. 254; Robertson v. State, 157 Miss. 642, 128 So. 772; Blevins v. State, 154 So. 269; Brumfield v. State, 102 Miss. 610, 59 So. 849, 921.

The defendant, by taking the witness stand and making a full, complete and outright judicial confession of the killing, cured any error there might have been in connection with the introduction of his extra judicial confession.

Weatherford v. State, 161 Miss. 888, 143 So. 853; Ross v. State, 158 Miss. 827, 130 So. 367.

OPINION

Ethridge, J.

The appellant, Obediah McKnight, was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in the circuit court of Adams county for the murder of his wife, Mattie McKnight. It appeared that on January 12, 1934, Mattie McKnight was at the home of her sister, Mary Scott, sitting at a table when some one outside knocked at the window and about that time a load of shot was fired through the window, struck said Mattie McKnight in the left breast, and killed her. Outside the window from which the shot was fired was found a block or stick of wood of some considerable size. Said Mattie McKnight, the wife of the appellant, had been living with her sister something like three weeks. After the killing, officers were telephoned for, and they went to the scene of the killing and found said block of wood at the window, and found a track with some peculiar mark on the sole which corresponded to tracks made by shoes found in the appellant's house. They proceeded to the appellant's house and there found him in bed apparently asleep. The officers questioned him, and he admitted to the deputy sheriff that he did the killing. Shortly after this confession to the deputy sheriff, the appellant, while in jail, made another statement to the sheriff admitting the killing.

On the following morning tracks were found in the direction of the appellant's home leading from the scene of the killing, and shoes were found which the appellant had worn. There was also found an empty shell along the way the appellant said he went from the killing, which he admitted he took from his gun.

A witness testified that he saw the appellant near dark on the evening of the killing about one and one-half miles from the scene of the killing, and that the appellant had a single-barreled shotgun and was going toward the scene of the killing.

When the deputy sheriff first arrested the appellant and obtained the confession, he accused appellant of the killing, stating to him that, if he did not tell the truth about it, he would be placed in jail. A general objection was made to the reception of this testimony on the ground that it should not be detailed before the jury, and the court...