Pickett v. State
| Decision Date | 30 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | 25284 |
| Citation | 106 So. 95,140 Miss. 671 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | PICKETT v. STATE. [*] |
1. CRIMINAL LAW. All instructions given to be read together as one. All instructions given in a case are to be read together as one instruction.
2. CRIMINAL LAW. Refusal of instructions covered by others given not harmful.
Refusal of instructions to defendant was without harm to him substantially the same principles of law being embodied in other instructions given.
APPEAL from circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. C. C. MILLER Judge.
Clyde Pickett was convicted of crime, and appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Jacobson & Brooks, for appellant.
The state proceeded in this case upon the idea that Clyde Pickett was present at the still, and because he was there and the killing took place he was responsible for it. From this circumstance they justified the conclusion that because Clyde Pickett admitted it was his still and he was making liquor there, this made him criminally responsible for every crime committed there, even though he had no control over it.
This was presented by the state, on the theory that the jury might well find that there was a conspiracy to avoid arrest, when there was nothing to justify that.
It was suggested further that Ben Pickett was guilty, when in the trial of Clyde Pickett, Ben Pickett's guilt was just as much an issue to be determined by the jury as Clyde Pickett's because if the jury had believed from the evidence, and had been allowed to consider the evidence of Clyde Pickett testifying, and I quote it as in those instructions, then if a reasonable doubt had arisen as to Ben Pickett's guilt it would have been an end to the deliberations in so far as Clyde Pickett was concerned, because Clyde Pickett is only seriously held by reason of the fact the state contends he was there aiding and assisting Ben Pickett. If they have done so upon that proposition, that he was there aiding and assisting, then he is entitled to a verdict of "not guilty." Ben Pickett may have been guilty, and this court has held that he was, but Ben Pickett's guilt is not conclusive as to Clyde, although it might have been necessary to consider Ben's guilt in connection with some phases of Clyde's guilt.
We feel that these instructions incorrectly announce the law, and that this case should be reversed on account of the instructions for the state.
Complaint is made of the action of the court in refusing instruction No. 2 for the appellant. It is beyond our comprehension how it can be argued that Mr. Cleveland should not have been required to have notified Pickett of his purpose.
This instruction as it is drawn simply proposes to state the duty and position of an officer, as well as to put those who are friendly to the administration of the law in a position where they do not have to be making explanations about such a harsh and impossible rule as this doctrine. A man can be riding along the streets of any community and on the highway, and be shot down without a moment's warning, if this instruction is not correct, and the act be condoned by the law.
Instruction No. 3 was asked for on this theory--that if Ben Pickett killed Cleveland in self-defense, and the evidence, or the want of evidence, or the uncertain nature of the evidence raised a reasonable doubt of that fact, then Clyde Pickett could not have been aiding, assisting and abetting a man in killing another, provided the fellow who did the killing shot in the lawful defense of his own person, and it was upon this theory that we believed them, and think now that this was the law.
The doctrine of aiding, assisting, and abetting the principal in killing an individual is upon the theory that there was a premeditated design to take the life of a human being; that there was a confederacy looking to that purpose, and the actual shooting by one, aided and assisted by the other, was in furtherance of that design.
Will it be contended that if Ben Pickett shot Cleveland in the lawful defense of his person, that there was a premeditated design? In other words, we urge here that if Ben Pickett shot in self-defense, then no law was violated; no criminal confederacy was consummated, and it is upon that theory we asked for that instruction, and upon which we urge reversible error.
Refused instruction No. 3 said that if Ben Pickett, as shown from the evidence, killed Cleveland in self-defense, then ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...there is no error, although certain instructions are erroneous. Walton v. State, 115 So. 215; Smith v. State, 107 Miss. 574; Pickett v. State, 140 Miss. 671; Cummins State, 144 Miss. 634; Nielsen v. State, 115 So. 429; Benson v. State, 102 Miss. 16; Long v. State, 103 Miss. 698; Smith v. St......
-
Hartley v. State
... ... refusal of another instruction in different words but ... attempting to convey the same idea is within its discretion ... and cannot be complained of ... Reeves ... v. State, 159 Miss. 498; Wiley v. State, 129 Miss ... 196; Reynolds v. State, 136 Miss. 329; Pickett ... v. State, 140 Miss. 671; Stubblefield v. State, ... 142 Miss. 787; Patterson v. State, 115 So. 777; ... Cain v. State, 135 Miss. 892; McGehee v ... State, 138 Miss. 822; Frazier v. State, 141 ... Miss. 18; Borders v. State, 138 Miss. 788; Waldrop ... v. State, 98 Miss. 567 ... ...
-
Richardson Corp. v. Standard Drug Co.
... ... appellant for one hundred twenty-six dollars in this case ... To ... state it more specifically, the appellee, Standard Drug ... Company, was allowed to off-set the claim of the appellant by ... proving a set-off of ... ...