Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 22255 |
| Citation | 129 Miss. 332,92 So. 225 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | THOMAS v. STATE |
CRIMINAL LAW. Supreme court will not disturb verdict based on competent evidence unless the testimony is unreasonable or highly improbable.
This court will not disturb the finding of fact by a jury when based upon convincing competent evidence except in exceedingly rare cases, where the testimony is unreasonable and so highly improbable as to raise extreme doubt, and become repulsive to the reasoning of an ordinary mind.
APPEAL from circuit court of Hinds county, HON. W. H. POTTER, Judge.
Henry Thomas was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Judgment reversed, and case remanded.
M. Ney Williams, for appellant.
Frank Roberson, attorney-general, for the state.
Henry Thomas was convicted of the murder of Mr. F. R. Snow, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life, from which judgment he appeals.
One morning in May, 1921, the dead body of Mr. Snow was found lying near the front gate of his residence in Hinds county; he had been killed by a crushing blow on the back of his head. Mr. Snow was a good citizen, and very popular in the community, and his murder aroused the people to great indignation. Many persons were arrested and placed in jail on suspicion; among them was the appellant. On the following day, the record discloses, a mob took the appellant into the woods, and whipped him very severely in an effort to obtain a confession of his guilt, but he at all times protested his innocence. Investigating parties searched from house to house in the community seeking information that would lead to finding the person or persons who committed the outrageous crime, but for several days no reliable clew could be obtained as to the guilty party.
About 10 days after the commission of the crime the preliminary trial of appellant took place, and for the first time a 14 year old negro girl by the name of Elmire Ross stated that on the evening of the murder, between sundown and dark, while she was setting out cabbage plants in the garden of her grandmother, a place about one-half mile from the residence of Mr. Snow, she looked down into the woods, and there, about 100 yards from where she was standing, she saw the appellant, Thomas, pick up the dead body of Mr. Snow, and place it upon his shoulders, and walk in some direction into the woods. She said that she recognized the appellant, and also Mr. Snow, at that time of the day and at that distance from her in the woods. She said that the sight did not disturb her; she told no one in the house or elsewhere about it; and that she recognized the face of appellant, and also that of the corpse. The credible evidence shows that, when the searching parties came to the house of this girl on the day after the murder, and asked her if she knew anything about it, she said that she knew nothing of it; that on the evening Mr. Snow was killed she was not at home, but "had gone plum hunting." She was not only silent, but denied any knowledge of the crime until 10 days afterwards, at the preliminary hearing, when she made the remarkable statement of seeing appellant deliberately place the dead body upon his shoulders and walk in view of the farm house into the woods. After she told this story examination of the grounds and woods at the point where she said she saw appellant place the body upon his shoulders was made by the officers, and they found no signs at or near the spot which would indicate that a murder had been committed there.
The conviction of appellant rests solely upon the testimony of this negro girl. There is no other substantial proof in the case which connects the appellant with the murder. No motive for the killing was shown; but, on the other hand, the testimony shows that the relations for several years between the appellant and the deceased were friendly, and that they were not only on good terms, but they had assisted each other in the past as good neighbors for many years. No plausible reason appears in this record that could have been a cause for the appellant to have murdered Mr. Snow. The physical facts and circumstances of the case negatively indicate that Mr. Snow was not killed in the woods, but it appears more reasonable that he was struck down by someone at the gate near his residence where found, while he still had in his hands the plow lines attached to his mule standing close by.
More than this, the story of this young negro girl seems doubtful with reference to whether she could see and recognize the faces of two men 100 yards away in the woods between sundown and dark. No one else saw what she said she saw. There were no signs of a scuffle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Angelo v. State
...Creed v. State, 176 So. 596, 179 Miss. 700; Day v. State (Miss.), 7 So. 326; Sykes v. State, 92 Miss. 247, 450 So. 838; Thomas v. State, 129 Miss. 332, 92 So. 225; Wright v. State, 130 Miss. 603, 94 So. Hunter v. State, 137 Miss. 276, 102 So. 282; Abele v. State, 138 Miss. 772, 103 So. 370;......
-
Odom v. State
......726; Jackson v. State, 105 Miss. 782, 63 So. 269; Wells v. State, 112 Miss. 76, 72 So. 859; Spight v. State, 120 Miss. 752, 83 So. 84; Chandler v. State, 143 Miss. 312, 108 So. 723; Matthews v. State, 148 Miss. 696, 114 So. 816; Steward v. State, 154 Miss. 858, 123 So. 891; Thomas v. State, 129. Miss. 332, 92 So. 225. . . Where. parties combine to commit crime, the law imputes the guilt of. each to all thus engaged, and pronounces all guilty of any. crime committed by any in the execution of the common. purpose, as one of its natural and probable ......
-
Hudson v. State
......State,. 165 Miss. 16, 143 So. 479. . . And the. court has further said that the verdict of the jury will. stand whenever it finds that the action of the jury was based. upon convincing, competent evidence, regardless of the nature. or amount of it. . . Thomas. v. State, 129 Miss. 339, 92 So. 225; Dean v. State,. 173 Miss. 254, 160 So. 583; Hinton v. State, 175 Miss. 308,. 166 So. 762. . . On the. motion for a new trial, it was alleged that appellant was. prejudiced by the manner in which talesmen were summoned for. this trial. In ......
-
Vance v. State
......637; Adams v. State, . 136 Miss. 298, 101 So. 437; Lofton v. State, 79. Miss. 723, 31 So. 420; Jones v. State, 84 Miss. 194,. 36 So. 243; Smith v. State, 75 Miss. 553, 23 So. 260; Coleman v. State, 179 Miss. 661, 176 So. 714;. Lee v. State, 138 Miss. 474, 103 So. 233; Thomas. v. State, 61 Miss. 60; Pulpus v. State, 82. Miss. 548, 34 So. 2; Cooper v. State, 80 Miss. 175,. 33 So. 579; Hartfield v. State, 176 Miss. 776, 170. So. 531. . . Error. was committed by the court below in giving that part of. Instruction No. 3 for the State, which ......