Suttle v. State

Decision Date23 April 1906
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesEUGENE SUTTLE v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

April 1906

FROM the circuit court of Winston county, HON. ROBERT F. COCHRAN Judge.

Suttle the appellant, was indicted for the murder of one Dock Smith was tried and convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of five years, from which conviction and sentence he appealed to the supreme court.

Appellant and one Hughes had heated words at a public gathering; the appellant seized a gun, and while holding it in his hand a bystander caught hold of it and a tussle followed, during which the gun was discharged and Smith, the decedent, also an innocent bystander, was shot and died from the injuries received. The contention of the state was that appellant fired the gun in an effort to kill Hughes. The defense was that the gun was discharged by accident during the scuffle for its possession. There was no evidence that appellant pulled the trigger. The court gave the following instruction at the request of the state:

"(3) The court charges the jury, for the state, that manslaughter is the killing of a human being without the authority of law, by the use of a dangerous weapon, in the heat of passion, without malice, and not in necessary self-defense; and the court charges the jury, further, that if they believe from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had an altercation with John Hughes about the breaking of a lantern, and that he procured a gun, and loaded the same, and came into the room in the heat of passion and without malice, intending to discharge said gun at John Hughes, and in the struggle over and for the possession of said gun the gun fired and killed Smith, at a time when the defendant, Suttle, was in no real or apparent danger at the hands of any one, of life, limb, or great bodily harm, and not in his necessary self-defense, then he is guilty of manslaughter, and the jury should so find."

Reversed and remanded.

Jones &amp Jones, for appellant.

The third instruction for the state is erroneous in this, that manslaughter is not predicable of the facts stated; and second, it attempts to state a hypothetical case and leaves out certain parts of the evidence material and favorable to defendant, and gives prominence to and emphasizes other parts of it not favorable to the defendant. Prine v State, 73 Miss. 838 (s.c., 19 So. 711)....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 12 Noviembre 1931
    ... ... innocent, but that "Yet the court now says to you," ... that this presumption of innocence which the law throws ... around the defendant as a shield and safeguard is not ... intended to shield from punishment anyone who is in fact ... guilty is erroneous ... Suttle ... v. State, 88 Miss. 177, 40 So. 552; Cunningham v ... State, 87 Miss. 417, 39 So. 531; Stringer v. State, 38 ... An ... instruction to the jury while correct as an abstract ... principle of law, is erroneous, when not based on the ... testimony ... Wilkerson ... v ... ...
  • Temple v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 6 Febrero 1933
    ...the case was reversed for the omission in the state's instruction of the defense propounded by the accused. It may be observed that in the Suttle case, the court made no mention of the there granted to the appellant. There is no merit in the other contentions as to granting or refusing inst......
  • Gordon v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 14 Junio 1909
    ...Hawthorn v. State, 58 Miss. 789; Murphy v. State, 89 Miss. 830, 42 So. 877; Fore v. State, 75 Miss. 727, 23 So. 710; Suttle v. State, 83 Miss. 177, 40 So. 552; Yarborough v. State, 70 Miss. 593, 12 So. Sanders v. State, 73 Miss. 444, 18 So. 541; Hoff v. State, 83 Miss. 488, 35 So. 950; Redd......
  • Tillman v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 7 Noviembre 1932
    ... ... Cooper ... v. State, 80 Miss. 175, 31 So. 579 ... An ... instruction for the state is fatally erroneous if it ignores ... and removes from the consideration of the jury a valid ... defense supported by evidence ... Suttle ... v. State, 88 Miss. 177, 40 So. 552 ... Only ... instructions applicable to the evidence in the case should be ... Canterbury ... v. State, 90 Miss. 579, 43 So. 678; Prince v. State, ... 93 Miss. 263, 46 So. 537 ... An ... instruction on an assumption of facts ... ...
  • 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