Murdin v. State
| Decision Date | 24 March 1903 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | SOPHRONIA MURDIN v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
March 1903
FROM the circuit court of Adams county. HON. JEFF TRULY, Judge.
Mrs Murdin, appellant, was charged, tried and convicted for carrying a deadly weapon concealed, and appealed to the supreme court. The opinion sufficiently states the facts.
Reversed and remanded.
Charles F. Engle, for appellant.
From the five witnesses introduced by appellant to prove the threats made against her it appears strongly, firmly, clearly that if there ever can be a case in which a person is justified in carrying concealed weapons it was in this case.
The fourth instruction of the state disregards entirely the defense interposed by appellant. The defect was not cured by the instructions given for appellant. To the jury two conflicting propositions were presented. The instruction for the state should have gone further and stated "unless they further believe that she had been threatened with a serious attack by an enemy and did so apprehend such an attack," or words to like effect.
Going to the jury, as it did, containing the bare and naked statements that if she carried the pistol concealed she is guilty, certainly misled the jury to the great injury of appellant.
J. N Flowers, assistant attorney general, for appellee.
A judgment will not be reversed by this court because in an instruction for the state a defense interposed by the accused is ignored if the instructions for the defense correctly state the law. Skates v. State, 64 Miss. 644.
The only instruction given for the state is fatally erroneous. It is true that in Skates v. State, 64 Miss 644, 1 So. 843, 60 Am. Rep., 70, the court held that it would not reverse, because the whole body of instructions taken together announced the law correctly, although one of the instructions for the state ignored a special feature of the defense; but that is not our case. This offense created by statute has by the same statute an exception named, which, if it exists, makes the party not guilty though he should carry the weapon concealed; and yet the state asked but one instruction, and attempting, by that instruction, to define the offense, told the jury to convict appellant upon proof merely that she carried the weapon concealed, although there was testimony clearly showing--if the jury believed it -- that she carried...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Talley v. State
-
Huffstickler v. State
...testimony of this kind was not hearsay, and competent, see Hurst's case, 101 Miss. 402, 58 So. 206; Page's case, 54 So. 725, Murdin's case, 82 Miss 507, 33 So. 944. We think the at bar falls within the rule announced in the above cases. Appellant had a number of witnesses in attendance upon......
-
Frazier v. State
...Skates v. State, 64 Miss. 644, 1 So. 843, 60 Am. Rep. 70. In support of this assignment the appellant relies on the case of Mendin v. State, 82 Miss. 507, 33 So. 944, in which it has held that in a prosecution for concealed weapons, where there is evidence clearly showing, if believed, that......
-
Hurst v. State
...he knew of that threat and hence he could not have had the pistol to protect against that threat. This threat is competent under Murdin v. State, 82 Miss. 507. See full opinion. submit that this rule draws the line too closely and too narrow. This threat is eminently competent, material and......