Shedd v. State
| Decision Date | 09 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | 36687. |
| Citation | 33 So.2d 816,203 Miss. 544 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | SHEDD v. STATE. |
J. L. Thompson, of Bay Springs, J M. Travis, of Meridian, Leonard B. Melvin, of Laurel, and J A. McFarland, of Bay Springs, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and Geo. H. Ethridge Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
In the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Jasper County appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of murder for the slaying of a city policeman of Heidelberg. The jury disagreed as to the punishment, and appellant was sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of his natural life. From such conviction and judgment he appeals here, assigning numerous errors.
At the time of the unfortunate tragedy appellant was married and the father of three children. He had come to Heidelberg about 9 o'clock on the evening of the 18th day of August, 1945, for the purpose of obtaining some groceries, and getting his supper. It was thereafter his intention to visit the hospital at Laurel and bring his wife home, she having recently there presented him with his third child.
When appellant drove into the village of Heidelberg, he purchased some groceries from a store in front of which he parked his car. Apparently having deposited them therein, he started across the street with a small bundle under his arm, entered a cafe, ordered his supper, and directed that some meat in the aforesaid bundle be cooked for him as a part thereof. For some undisclosed reason he left the cafe, intending to return for his supper, but, of course, never did, because of the strange and extraordinary events which followed and ultimately culminated in the slaying of the policeman.
There were just outside the cafe, at appellant's entrance and departure, a former mayor of Heidelberg; the city policeman, Joe Doole; and his wife. Without disclosing why he did so, the officer peered into the restaurant once or twice until appellant emerged therefrom. Appellant was then followed across the street by the officer, who had not warrant for his arrest; but when the appellant reached his car, the officer grasped him by the arm, and the two men then had some conversation, not audible to any one else. Since appellant did not testify at his trial, what they said is still unknown, and the State was unable to prove that the policeman informed appellant that he was under arrest, and if so, for what. The Attorney General frankly concedes that if it were for an offense committed in the presence of the officer, it could have been justified solely on the testimony of Mrs. Doole, that, in the cafe, appellant was boisterous, and as he passed her she detected the odor of whiskey. We think this insufficient to justify appellant's arrest on this occasion. However, the evidence in the record overwhelmingly demonstrated that appellant was not drunk, or even apparently under the influence of intoxicants. The State never proved that the officer either had or served any kind of warrant on appellant, or, as stated, why he arrested appellant, or for what. It may be that the officer thought appellant possessed intoxicating liquor in the small package under his arm, but if so, this was shown to the untrue, and hence did not authorize the arrest.
Nevertheless, the officer and prisoner started to the jail, and after they were out of sight of all of those who testified for the State, four or five shots were heard in rapid succession. They hurried in the direction from whence they sounded, and found the officer lying across a wire fence, a few feet in front of the jail, bleeding profusely from several wounds, and the appellant gone. They did not see the shooting, and had no knowledge of what there happened.
However, the wife and her husband were driven to the hospital at Laurel in the car of a friend immediately, which was some time between 9 and 10 o'clock Saturday night, October 18, 1945. In the course of the drive the wife, testifying on behalf of the State, said her husband made a dying declaration as to what occurred. Before permitting this evidence to go to it, the jury was excused and Mrs. Doole was examined as to its admissibility. The court admitted it in evidence before the jury, and his doing so is assigned as one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. State
...at that time that a quorum meant a majority of the Court, and that a majority was necessary to transact business. In Shedd v. State, 203 Miss. 544, 33 So.2d 816 (1948), this Court again pointed out that a vote of the majority of the members of the Court was required to decide an issue. We s......
-
Shinall v. State, 44352
...gas chamber, as required by law. Affirmed. All Justices concur. 1 Bergman v. State, 160 Miss. 65, 133 So. 208 (1931); Shedd v. State, 203 Miss. 544, 33 So.2d 816 (1948); Williams v. State, 120 Miss. 604, 82 So. 318, 84 So. 8 (1919); Williams v. State, 127 Miss. 851, 90 So. 705 (1922); Fletc......
-
Branning v. State
...184 Miss. 96, 185 So. 836; Craft v. State, 202 Miss. 43, 30 So.2d 414; Hubbard v. State, 202 Miss. 229, 30 So.2d 901; Shedd v. State, 203 Miss. 544, 33 So.2d 816; Acuna v. State, Miss., 54 So.2d Recitals of the facts and an analysis of the principles involved in the foregoing cases would un......
-
Butler v. State, 44914
...One 1948 Pontiac Automobile v. State, 221 Miss. 352, 72 So.2d 692 (1954); Haney v. State, 43 So.2d 383 (Miss.1949); Shedd v. State, 203 Miss. 544, 33 So.2d 816 (1948); King v. State, 147 Miss. 31, 113 So. 173 The officers here admitted the man was committing no crime in their presence, admi......