Murphy v. State

Decision Date18 February 1907
Citation42 So. 877,89 Miss. 827
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesJAMES M. MURPHY v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

November 1906

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

Murphy the appellant, was indicted and tried for the murder of Joseph Hagan, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of years, and appealed to the supreme court.

The killing occurred in Yazoo City at the close of a heated municipal election. The testimony was sharp and conflicting. The state's theory of the facts was that appellant and others were standing in front of the courthouse, where ballots were being counted, when Hagan, partially intoxicated, passed by, shouting for one of the candidates and, as he passed appellant, without provocation, seized him and threw him to the ground, and as he arose shot him. The defendant claimed that Hagan, as he passed, shouted offensively in appellant's face, and thereupon appellant threw him to the ground, falling with him; as they arose they were separated by other persons, but Hagan, escaping from those who sought to restrain him, drew a large knife, and rushed at appellant, causing him to retreat, and cry out "Stand back!" Hagan, however, continued to advance upon appellant with an open knife, placing appellant in peril of his life, and that he, being in such peril, drew his revolver and shot Hagan in self-defense.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Barnett & Perrin, and R. N. Miller, for appellant.

The granting of the third instruction asked by the state was fatal error. It in effect charged that every willful killing of a human being is either murder or manslaughter. No account whatever is taken of malice aforethought. Under the instruction a jury would be compelled to bring in a verdict of guilty of murder or of manslaughter in every case where an accused person admitted killing another, even though it was apparent that the killing was in self- defense.

The tenth instruction granted to the state was also erroneous, in that it eliminated all consideration of the fact that the defendant must be held innocent until proof of guilt was shown beyond any reasonable doubt.

The fact that other instructions to the jury stated correct propositions of law as to murder and manslaughter, could not cure the errors in the above-mentioned instructions for the state. Beasley v. State, 64 Miss. 518 (S.C., 8 So. 234).

R. V. Fletcher, assistant attorney-general, and J. F. Barbour, for appellee.

If it be that the third and tenth instructions granted to the state were erroneous, the errors were cured by the many other instructions granted to the appellant, which stated the law so fully and liberally in favor of the appellant that the jury certainly could not have been misled as to the law of the case. Harris v. State, 47 Miss. 318.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, C. J.

The third instruction given for the state is in the following words:

"The court instructs the jury that every willful killing of a human being is either murder or manslaughter--murder, if done deliberately; manslaughter, if done without any deliberation whatever. And the deliberation necessary to constitute murder need only to exist for an instant before the fatal shot is fired."

This is so palpably erroneous as to need no discussion. Every killing in self-defense is deliberately and intentionally done.

The tenth instruction for the state is in the following words:

"The court instructs the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Butler v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 12, 1936
    ...v. State, 31 Miss. 504; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Minor, 69 Miss. 710, 11 So. 101; Harper v. State, 35 So. 572, 83 Miss. 402; Murphy v. State, 42 So. 877, 89 Miss. 827; Hawthorne v. State, 58 Miss. 778; Josephine State, 39 Miss. 647. The appellant complains of the sixth instruction given to the st......
  • Hudson v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 15, 1939
    ...So. 61; Burke v. State, 72 Miss. 408, 16 So. 342; Kenton v. State, 31 Miss. 504; Harper v. State, 83 Miss. 402, 35 So. 572; Murphy v. State, 89 Miss. 827, 42 So. 877; Hawthorne v. State, 58 Miss. 778; Josephine State, 39 Miss. 647; House v. Fultz, 13 S. & M. 39; Herndon v. Henderson, 41 Mis......
  • Vance v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 12, 1938
    ... ... 515; McCaa v. State, 38 So. 228; ... Cunningham v. State, 87 Miss. 417, 39 So. 531; ... Butler v. State, 177 Miss. 91, 170 So. 148; ... Brett v. State, 94 Miss. 669, 47 So. 781; Upton ... v. State, 94 Miss. 1, 108 So. 287; Barnes v ... State, 118 Miss. 621, 79 So. 815; Murphy v. State, 89 ... Miss. 827, 42 So. 877 ... This ... instruction is fatally erroneous in that it is not predicated ... of all of the facts introduced in evidence, and excludes from ... the consideration of the jury the theory of the appellant ... that he had abandoned the difficulty ... ...
  • Cofer v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1930
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT