Moseley v. State

• Decision Date: 06 July 1906
• Citation: 89 Miss. 802,41 So. 384
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAM MOSELEY v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

41 So. 384

89 Miss. 802

WILLIAM MOSELEY v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

July 6, 1906

November 1906

FROM the circuit court of Yazoo county, HON. DAVID M. MILLER Judge.

Moseley the appellant, a negro, was indicted and tried for the murder of Alfred Williams, also a negro; was convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life, and appealed to the supreme court.

The appellant claimed to have shot Williams in self-defense. About fifteen minutes before the shooting, appellant, in company with several others, was at the house of Harriet Taylor; Williams came there, and immediately began cursing appellant, who made no reply; Williams then, turning his front pockets and his right hip pocket, patted his left hip pocket, in which the outlines of an object about the size of a pistol could be seen, and stated in a loud voice that he would not show the contents of that pocket to any one appellant thereupon left the house and went to his store, in his near by dwelling house. Williams followed appellant to the store, entering it immediately after him, and continued to direct insulting and abusive language to him, although several other persons were present. There was a conflict in the testimony about what happened in the store. Most of the witnesses testified that appellant, retreating behind the counter, ordered Williams to leave the store, when Williams advanced upon him, cursing him, beating upon the counter with one hand, and reaching with the other towards his hip pocket as if for a weapon. Appellant thereupon snatched a pistol from under the store counter and shot Williams, and upon the trial testified that when he did so he was in great fear of his life; that he recalled the language and threatening demonstration of Williams at the house of Harriet Taylor a short while before, and shot in self-defense.

Appellant offered evidence to show the general reputation of the deceased for violence, and further proved that the deceased was under the influence of cocaine at the time of the killing, but was not allowed to prove the character of the deceased when under the influence of the drug. Appellant excepted to this ruling, and, the jury having been excluded, proved by many witnesses and many particular instances, that decedent was dangerous and irresponsible when under the influence of cocaine. This was not, however, allowed to go to the jury, and the appellant excepted.

Over the objection of appellant the court granted the sixth instruction to the state, referred to in the opinion, and being in the following language:

"No. 6. The court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Moseley wilfully and deliberately shot and killed Alfred Williams, and that at the time of the shooting Alfred had done nothing to Moseley but curse and swear at him, and had been guilty of no act or conduct which was reasonably calculated to have aroused the fears or apprehension of Moseley for his own life or person at the hands of Alfred, then Moseley is guilty of murder, and the jury should so find, however much afraid they may believe Moseley was of Alfred, or however much reason they may believe Moseley might have had for such fears or apprehensions on account of Alfred's conduct previous to the time of the killing."

Reversed and remanded.

Campbell & Campbell, and Henry, Barbour & Henry, for appellant.

The defense in this case was that appellant shot to protect himself from imminent danger. The undisputed testimony showed that the deceased was a man of unusual size and strength, quarrelsome when sober, and absolutely dangerous when drunk or when under the influence of cocaine. On the other hand, the appellant was quiet in nature, of good reputation in the community, and was upon his own property, in his own store, where he had the best right in the world to be, at the time the deceased brought his death upon himself.

The very first appearance of the deceased upon the scene in this tragedy was accompanied by uncalled-for and abusive language upon his part toward appellant. Without being even spoken to by any one when he first came in upon appellant and the others at the house of Harriet Taylor, he made demonstrations which showed that he was seeking to intimidate appellant. It appeared to every one present at this house that the deceased had in his hip pocket either a pistol or a large knife. The language of the deceased indicated that he had a deadly weapon in this pocket. When appellant, to avoid trouble, left and went to his own store, located in a room of his home, the deceased followed him. When he continued his abusive language toward appellant, appellant ordered him to stop. And it was not until after appellant had ordered the deceased from the store, and the deceased had refused, and was advancing upon appellant in a threatening manner that appellant retreated behind the counter and shot the intruder. Certainly these facts did not show malicious intent to kill upon the part of the appellant.

We submit that it was error in the court below not to permit the appellant to show that the deceased was...