Talbert v. State

Citation159 So. 549,172 Miss. 243
Decision Date04 March 1935
Docket Number31516
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
PartiesTALBERT v. STATE

Suggestion Of Error Overruled April 1, 1935.

(In Banc.)

1. CRIMINAL LAW.

Witness testimony in murder trial that railroad crossing, from which occupants of truck saw defendant standing beside highway with hand on pistol, which he fired at truck, killing one occupant thereof, was in certain county, held sufficient to show venue therein.

2 HOMICIDE.

Evidence in trial for murdering occupant of truck that defendant fired pistol in direction of truck as it was going down grade from him held to preclude holding that homicide was accidental.

3. CRIMINAL LAW.

Defendant not asking for manslaughter instruction in murder trial cannot complain on appeal of trial court's failure to give such instruction.

4 HOMICIDE.

Whether some occupants of truck, toward which defendant in murder trial fired pistol shot, killing one occupant thereof, had addressed insulting language to defendant's wife, held for jury on conflicting evidence,

5 HOMICIDE.

Use of deadly weapon by one charged with murdering occupant of passing truck held to raise presumption of malice, in view of accused's and his wife's testimony that some occupants of truck had addressed insulting language to wife.

6. HOMICIDE.

Evidence in murder trial that defendant discharged deadly weapon at passing truck, crowded with human beings, killing one of them, held to warrant finding of malice and motive by jury (Code 1930, section 985, subdivisions (a, b)).

7. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.

Indictment in language of statute for murder need not set forth mariner and details of homicide (Code 1930, section 1211).

8. HOMICIDE.

Instruction that, unlawful killing of human being, with malice aforethought and deliberate design, to kill him, or in commission of act eminently dangerous to others and evincing depraved heart, regardless of human life, though without such design, is a murder, held not erroneous in trial for murder under Indictment in language of statute (Code 1930, section 986, subdivisions (a, b); section 1211).

9. HOMICIDE.

Instruction informing jury of sentence court would impose on forms of verdict involving life imprisonment, but; failing to tell them that, if they returned general verdict of guilty of murder as charged, it would be court's duty to impose death sentence, held erroneous, but not misleading or prejudicial to defendant.

HON. JNO. M. KUYKENDALL, Judge.

APPEAL from the circuit court of Tallahatchie county HON. JNO. M. KUYKENDALL, Judge.

James Talbert was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. O. Day, of Tutwiler, for appellant.

The facts in this case do not warrant a verdict of conviction for murder nor manslaughter. It is not necessarily a felony to kill an innocent bystander.

State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945; 1 L.R.A. (N.S.), 991; 111 Am. St. Rep. 818; 4 Ann. Cas. 797; Dixon v. State, 104 Miss. 410, 61 So. 423; Archbold's Criminal Proc. 9.

Barbour & Henry, of Yazoo City, for appellant.

The defendant is specifically charged in the indictment with having killed Jesse Lewis "willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with malice aforethought." The indictment nowhere charges the "killing of a human being without authority of law, when done in the commission of an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a, depraved heart, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design, to effect the death of any particular individual."

There is no evidence whatever that the defendant killed Jesse Lewis with malice aforethought or with any deliberate design to effect the death of Jesse Lewis.

Gentry v. State, 92 Miss. 141; Falkner v. State, 154 So. 338.

The venue is not proven in this case.

The defendant and his wife were not contradicted in their statement that the insult was offered, and that the defendant resented it by shooting, so that this testimony, which offers the only possible reason why the shooting should have taken place, is reasonably easily believable and is uncontradicted.

The testimony shows complete absence of malice on defendant's part and fails to show any contradiction of defendant's reasonable statement.

This court has reversed several cases, just because the manslaughter instruction was not submitted to the jury, and not asked by either side.

Allen v. State, 139, Miss. 605.

W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

Malice and an intent to kill may be formed in an instant.

Williams v. state, 163 Miss. 475, 142 So. 471; Eaton v. State, 163 Miss. 130, 140 So. 729.

It was a question for the jury to say whether or not malice and an intent to kill were present at the time of the shooting.

Venue in a criminal case may be shown by circumstantial evidence.

Dorsey v. State, 141 Miss. 600, 106 So. 827; Ussery v. State, 154 Miss. 704, 123 So. 854.

This court has said that it will take judicial notice of the existence and general course of railroads, as well as the existence of municipalities in the state.

Hill v. State, 112 Miss. 375, 73 So. 66.

The defendant did not ask for any manslaughter instruction either and he cannot complain of the court's failure to submit that issue to the jury.

Rutland v. State, 155 So. 681; Dobbs v. State, 142 So. 500; Cosey v. State, 161 Miss. 747, 138, So. 344.

An intent to kill someone or anyone is sufficient to supply intent to kill the one who was actually killed.

Ross v. State, 131 So. 367.

It is said that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence. We submit that this is a question which this court cannot pass upon now. There was no motion for a new trial presented to the court after the verdict was rendered in this case. Therefore, the trial court has not passed upon this question and this court is limited to a review of what was done in the trial court.

Justice v. State, 154 So. 265; Bryant v. State, 157 So. 346.

Argued orally by W. A. Henry, for appellant.

OPINION

McGowen, J.

On an indictment for murder in the killing of Jesse Lewis, appellant was tried, convicted, and sentenced to be banged by the lower court, and appeals here.

In August, 1934, Meadow Pressgrove, a white man, carried a truckload of twenty-one negro men from Minter City to Lambert on Sunday afternoon to engage in a game of baseball. They lost the game, and returned to Minter City. It was after dark when they reached what the witnesses called Shoe Bridge railroad crossing. Two of the witnesses, who were in the truck at the time, testified that they saw the appellant and a woman standing on the side of the highway as they went over the railroad crossing; that the appellant had his hand on his pistol, was close enough to touch the truck, and after they had passed him a, few feet he stepped back and fired one shot in the direction of the truck. After they had proceeded a short distance it was discovered that one of the passengers on the truck had been wounded and another, Jesse Lewis, had been shot through the head, from which wound he subsequently died.

One state witness told the officers that appellant had fired the shot, and the other state witnesses identified appellant as being there at the crossing. Some of the witnesses for the state testified positively that there was no talking, boisterous conduct, or indecent language used on the highway at or near the point where this shooting occurred. According to all four witnesses presented by the state, no word was spoken between the appellant and the occupants of the truck.

Witness Smith, who owned a plantation on which appellant's wife lived, testified that Shoe Bridge railroad crossing was in the second district of Tallahatchie county, Mississippi, and makes it sufficiently clear that the venue was in that county.

The appellant testified that on several occasions before this occurrence trucks had passed his house, which was a short distance from the highway near this crossing, and that insulting remarks had been directed toward his wife by occupants of a truck, but it was not shown that the occupants of this truck were guilty of such conduct. He further testified that be had sent a boy to a store, the boy had remarked that he was afraid to come back after dark, and the appellant took his pistol, which he had owned several years, and walked with his wife to meet the boy. As they were proceeding along the highway the truck passed and some one thereon addressed insulting lascivious remarks to his wife. He testified further that he did not shoot any certain way, that he shot to "stop them and scare them from that bad talk," and that he "didn't intend to kill anybody." His wife corroborated his testimony as to the indecent language addressed to her, and stated that she did not know that her husband was armed, and did not see him fire the shot. The appellant had never been arrested before, according to his evidence. He was arrested at his work about a week after the shooting and very soon thereafter was tried. He stated to witness Smith, who made the arrest, that he shot at the truck because of the "nasty talk" addressed by some occupants thereof to his wife.

First. We think the venue was sufficiently shown by the witness Smith.

Second. Appellant hints that this court should hold that the homicide was accidental, but there is not a line of testimony to support a theory of a accidental shot, in fact, the appellant's own statement is that he fired the pistol and he gives the reason therefor, but unfortunately he fired it in the direction of the truck loaded with human beings. He shot as the truck was going from him down grade, therefore he was on an elevation above the truck, and evidently the pistol was pointed toward the truck for the shot...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Owen v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 14 Diciembre 1936
  • Windham v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 20 Mayo 1992
    ...(1921); Hawthorne v. State, 58 Miss. 778 (1881); McDaniel v. State, 8 Smed. and M. 401 (Miss.1847). Furthermore, in Talbert v. State, 172 Miss. 243, 159 So. 549, 551 (1935), the Court had under consideration two jury instructions, one of them being in the precise language of the "depraved h......
  • Nicolaou v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 26 Octubre 1988
    ...805 (1949); Smith v. State, 205 Miss. 283, 38 So.2d 725 (1949); Jones v. State, 178 Miss. 636, 174 So. 546 (1937); Talbert v. State, 172 Miss. 243, 159 So. 549 (1935); Wright v. State, 162 Miss. 494, 139 So. 869 (1932); Bennett v. State, 152 Miss. 728, 120 So. 837 (1929); Holmes v. State, 1......
  • Mallett v. State, 89-KA-0440
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 19 Agosto 1992
    ...Fairman v. State, 513 So.2d 910, 913 (Miss.1987); Johnson v. State, 475 So.2d 1136, 1139-40 (Miss.1985); Talbert v. State, 172 Miss. 243, 250, 159 So. 549, 551 (1935). There is no error Mallett next claims the Circuit Court erred in failing to submit to the jury an instruction on the lesser......
  • 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