Stokes v. Terrell, Sheriff

• Decision Date: 20 May 1929
• Docket Number: 28016
• Citation: 154 Miss. 230,122 So. 470
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: STOKES v. TERRELL, SHERIFF

122 So. 470

154 Miss. 230

STOKES v. TERRELL, SHERIFF

No. 28016

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 20, 1929

(Division B.)

1. BAIL. Where one view of case led to conclusion of defendant's guilt of murder, judgment of trial judge denying bail cannot be reversed.

Where one view of case, considering all testimony in connection with physical facts, led to conclusion of defendant's guilt of murder, the judgment of the trial judge in denying application for bail under writ of habeas corpus cannot be reversed.

2. HABEAS CORPUS. Judgment in habeas corpus proceeding will not be disturbed unless error of judgment on facts is made clear.

Where only review of facts is involved, judgment in habeas corpus proceeding will not be disturbed unless error of judgment on facts is made clear---plain to extent that asserted error meets with no great weight of refutation.

Division B

APPEAL from circuit court of Jefferson Davis county.

HON. J Q. LANGSTON, Judge.

Application by Alton Stokes for a writ of habeas corpus against V. L Terrell, sheriff. The lower court denied the application and remanded the prisoner, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

C. E. Thompson, of Prentiss, and G. Wood Magee, of Monticello, for appellant.

Section 29 of the Constitution makes it mandatory on the courts to grant bail where the evidence is such that a reasonable doubt is raised as to applicant's guilt.

In fact, the public policy of this state favors bail. Ex parte Oliver, 127 Miss. 208; Ex parte Hamilton and Eubanks, 65 Miss. 153; Mississippi Constitution by Judge ETHRIDGE, page 148 and authorities there cited.

J. A. Lauderdale, Assistant Attorney-General, of Jackson, and Livingston & Milloy, of Prentiss, for appellee.

The court has the discretion to grant bail to a party charged with murder, where the evidence is such that the jury might, and perhaps ought to convict. Where the judge who heard the case found that the prisoner was not entitled to bail and in so doing exercised every discretion given him under the law then the only question before the supreme court is: Did he abuse this discretion? Ex parte Wray, 30 Miss. 673; Street v. State, 43 Miss. 1; Moore v. State, 39 Miss. 715.

Where a party is indicted for murder, bail should not be granted unless peculiar circumstances render it proper. Ex parte Bridewell, 57 Miss. 39; Ex parte Hamilton, 65 Miss. 147; State v. Key, 93 Miss. 115; Ex parte Jack, 22 So. 186; Martin v. State, 97 Miss. 567, 52 So. 258.

OPINION

GRIFFITH, J.

Appellant, in prison charged with murder, applied for bail under a writ of habeas corpus. The circuit judge, after hearing all the testimony, denied the application and remanded the prisoner.

The record presents no questions of law, but involves a review solely upon the facts. It has been the usual course in this court on appeals in this class of cases to forego comment in detail on the evidence, unless the necessity therefor is unavoidable. The reason for this course, in advance of the principal trial, is manifest. Therefore, all we say is that under all the testimony, when taken in connection with the physical facts, there is one view of the case, amply upheld by the evidence, which leads to the conclusion of guilt of murder. There is another view sustained by some of the evidence which would exculpate the prisoner. The circuit judge, in full view of the witnesses and of the physical situation, was convinced of the truth of the evidence which led to the conclusion of guilt. In such a state of case we must say, as was said in the recent case of Parker v. Tullos, 150 Miss. 680 at page 685, 116 So. 531 at p. 532, that "the judgment of a habeas corpus court will not be disturbed, unless it is manifest to us that the trial court either tried the cause upon an erroneous conception of the law, or that the...