Stubblefield v. State

• Decision Date: 05 April 1926
• Docket Number: 25581
• Citation: Stubblefield v. State, 142 Miss. 787, 107 So. 663 (Miss. 1926)
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: STUBBLEFIELD v. STATE. [*]

107 So. 663

142 Miss. 787

STUBBLEFIELD v. STATE. ^[*]

No. 25581

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 5, 1926

Division B

1. CRIMINAL LAW. Homicide. While it is unwise to give instruction shutting off right of self-defense in murder or manslaughter prosecutions, where facts embraced in hypotheses of instructions warrant application of doctrine, and facts in evidence will sustain hypotheses, such instruction may be given; where all instructions for state and accused taken together on given proposition make harmonious announcement of law, supported by facts, supreme court will not reverse.

While it is unwise in practice to give an instruction shutting off the right of self-defense in prosecutions for murder or manslaughter, still, where the facts embraced in the hypotheses of the instructions warrant the application of the doctrine, and where the facts in evidence will sustain the hypotheses embraced in the instruction, such instruction may be given. Where all of the instructions for the state and the defendant taken together on a given proposition make a harmonious announcement of the law, and the law announced is supported by the facts, this court will not reverse.

2 HOMICIDE. Evidence held sufficient to constitute case of murder. The evidence in this case examined and reviewed, and held sufficient to constitute a case of murder.

3. CRIMINAL LAW. Where law applicable to prosecution for homicide as applied to facts is fully stated in given instructions requested by accused refusal of other instruction, though correct in form and applicable, is not error.

Where the law applicable to a prosecution for homicide as applied to the facts is fully given in the instructions granted as requested by a defendant, the refusal of other instructions although correct in form and applicable, may be refused. The court is only required to announce the law applicable to the case and is not required to repeat the announcement of legal principles in various forms of expression.

HON. E J. SIMMONS, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Lincoln county, HON. E. J. SIMMONS, Judge.

Nola Stubblefield appeals. Judgment affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

H. V. Wall and P. Z. Jones, for appellant.

The court, in our opinion, misconceived this case in giving instruction No. 4 for the state. In giving this instruction the trial court assumed that there was evidence in the record to the effect that the defendant armed himself with a deadly weapon, a shot gun, left home for the purpose of killing Watkins, the deceased, went to the home of the deceased and there provoked a difficulty with him for the purpose and with the felonious intent to kill him. Whereas, in truth and in fact there is no such evidence in this record; the facts show, and it is undisputed, that this child went out hunting with a shot gun and a dog and shot his gun near the home of the deceased. At the most, he shot at one of the deceased's children, and then ran into the woods nearly a quarter of a mile with the deceased pursuing him before he shot and killed him.

The state takes the position that this child, fourteen years old, conceived the idea of murdering the deceased and of traveling about two or three miles from his home, shooting at the deceased's children in order to decoy him out to kill him; and after decoying him out, turned and ran about a quarter of a mile with one felonious intent of having the deceased follow him so that he could get to kill him. This is the contention of the state, and we say that this theory is not borne out by the facts. It borders on the ridiculous, because the human mind does not work that way; and especially is that true of a child fourteen years old.

The lower court in giving the instructions was laboring under a misconception of the Stuckey case recently decided by this court and reported in 104 So. 610. This instruction has been universally condemned by our courts, as will be seen by Hunt v. State, 72 Miss. 413; Lofton v. State, 79 Miss. 723, 31 So. 420; Pulpus v. State, 82 Miss. 543, 34 So. 230; Herring v. State, 87 Miss. 628, 40 So. 230; Adams v. State, 101 Miss. 437.

We have undertaken to analyze all of the cases wherein a similar instruction has been given and we find in all of them, without a single exception, as we recall it, that the evidence shows that there was some kind of an immediate difficulty between the defendant and the deceased; that defendant went off and armed himself, came back, provoked a difficulty and killed the deceased.

We contend that before an instruction of this kind could be given, it was absolutely necessary that the state first prove by competent evidence facts to sustain such a theory. Our court has universally held this to be the rule.

There is no evidence in this record to show the essential elements necessary to such an instruction; there is no evidence that the defendant armed himself with a shot gun for the purpose of killing the deceased. This instruction assumes such was proved. There is no evidence to show that the boy was the aggressor in the difficulty in which Watkins was killed.

This instruction depriving the defendant of the right of self-defense has been condemned by our court and the doctrine seems to be well settled that this instruction should never be given except in rare cases. We do not perceive any conflict in the authorities. The question has been before our court many times and we refer this court to the following cases: Smith v. State, 75 Miss. 553, 23 So. 260; Patterson v. State, 75 Miss. 675, 23 So. 467; Fore v. State, 75 Miss. 727, 23 So. 710; Lofton v. State, 79 Miss. 723, 31 So. 420; Cooper v. State, 80 Miss. 175, 31 So. 579; Pulpus v. State, 82 Miss. 543, 35 So. 2; Jones v. State, 84 Miss. 194, 33 So. 243; Herring v. State, 87 Miss. 628, 40 So. 230; Garner v. State, 93 Miss. 843, 47 So. 500; Williamson v. State, 115 Miss. 716, 76 So. 637; Adams v. State (Miss.), 101 So. 437; Cannon v. State, 57 Miss. 147; Thomas v. State, 61 Miss. 60; Helm v. State, 67 Miss. 562, 7 So. 487; Thompson v. State (Miss.), 9 So. 298; Hunt v. State, 72 Miss. 413, 16 So. 753; Prine v. State, 73 Miss. 838, 19 So. 711; Smith v. State, 75 Miss. 553, 23 So. 260; Hays v. State, 130 Miss. 381, 94 So. 212.

The court has held that this instruction should be granted only in cases where the facts justify it. And a reading of this record will disclose an utter lack of evidence upon which to base this instruction here.

J. H. Sumrall and J. A. Lauderdale, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

Even though all the instructions requested are correct as propositions of law and applicable to the facts in this case, this cause should not be reversed simply because all were not given. The twenty instructions granted are certainly ample to cover this case and those granted did cover every phase of the law, the evidence and the rights of the defendant. See Ingram v. State, 62 Miss. 142; Mabry v. State, 71 Miss. 716; Waldrop v. State, 54 So. 66; Schrader v. State, 84 Miss. 593; McCoy v. State, 91 Miss. 257; Lewis v. State, 93 Miss. 697; Brett v. State, 94 Miss. 669; Anglin v. State, 96 Miss. 215.

Appellant assigns as error instruction No. 4, granted to the state. This instruction is sound law, admittedly so by counsel for appellant, and it is supported by the authorities cited by them. However, they claim that it is erroneous because the facts in this case do not justify it. The defendant had made various and sundry threats that he would kill deceased. He armed himself with a shot gun, a deadly weapon. He provoked the difficulty by shooting at deceased's son. He used the shot gun to kill Watkins. He boasted afterwards that he had made threats and had carried them out. The law presumes he intended to do what he did do. The facts show that this instruction was clearly justifiable and it was not error to give it in this case. Even though this court should hold that it was error, it will not work a reversal of this case because the defendant requested and obtained two instructions, Nos. 6 and 20, that announced exactly the same proposition of law and he cannot now complain that the court announced for the state that the law is as stated in the instructions for the defendant.

Argued orally by P. Z. Jones and H. V. Wall, for appellant, and J. A. Lauderdale, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

OPINION

ETHRIDGE, J.

The appellant, a boy fifteen years of age, was indicted for the murder of A. K. Watkins, a school teacher in Lincoln county Miss. The facts in reference to the killing are substantially as follows: In February preceding the killing appellant was a pupil in the school taught by Professor Watkins and was punished corporally by Mr. Watkins for some infraction of the regulations of the school, and at the time of the infliction of the punishment made some threat against Mr. Watkins. Appellant repeated these threats or made other threats at different times between the date of the punishment and the date of the killing, which killing occurred some two or three weeks after the school term closed. On the day of the killing appellant, being near the Watkins' house, fired a gun, the shot from which came in the direction of the home and attracted the attention of the Watkins' family and of a young lady who was there on that day engaged in canning some products. When the first shot was fired, Mr. Watkins looked around the place a little and went to the home of a neighbor just across the road and asked him if he heard the shot and if he knew where it came from. The neighbor replied that he heard the shot, but did not know who fired it, nor where it came from. Mr. Watkins then asked this man to go with him into the woods near their homes and investigate the matter, but the neighbor declined to do...