Thompson v. State

• Decision Date: 25 January 1904
• Citation: Thompson v. State, 83 Miss. 287, 35 So. 689 (Miss. 1904)
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BUSTER THOMPSON v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

35 So. 689

83 Miss. 287

BUSTER THOMPSON v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 25, 1904

October 1903

FROM the circuit court of Winston county. HON. GUION Q. HALL Judge.

Thompson appellant, was indicted, tried, and convicted of the murder of one William Colter, sentenced to the penitentiary for life and appealed to the supreme court.

On the trial in the court below he asked the following instructions which were refused:

"The court instructs the jury that the law starts out with the presumption that the defendant is entirely innocent of the whole charge, and every part and parcel of it, and it is the duty of the jury to give the defendant the benefit of this right guaranteed to him by the laws of the land. They should reconcile the evidence to accord with the theory of his innocence if they can; and, if they cannot, they must acquit, unless guilt be proven by the evidence to a moral certainty, which means beyond all reasonable doubt arising out of the evidence or the want of evidence."

"The court instructs the jury that the presumption of innocence does not allow the presumption of guilt. Therefore each fact essential to the conclusion of guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt."

"The court instructs the jury that if there is any fact or circumstance proven by the evidence in this case upon which the jury can place a reasonable construction favorable either to the state or the defendant, it is the duty of the jury to accept that construction favorable to the defendant, although the one favorable to the state is more reasonable."

"The court instructs the jury that, if there are two reasonable theories arising out of the evidence of this case, one favorable to the state and the other favorable to the defendant, it is the duty of the jury to accept the one favorable to the defendant, although the one favorable to the state is the more reasonable, and supported by the stronger evidence."

Reversed and remanded.

Jones & Hughston and L. H. Hopkins, for appellant.

J. N. Flowers, assistant attorney general, for appellee.

[The briefs of counsel were withdrawn or lost from the record before it reached the reporter.]

OPINION

TRULY, J.

It has always been, is now, and we trust ever shall be, the law in criminal cases that, where there are two reasonable hypotheses arising out of and supported by the evidence, it is the duty of the jury to adopt the...