Thompson v. State

• Decision Date: 10 February 1896
• Citation: 73 Miss. 584,19 So. 204
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: TOM THOMPSON v. THE STATE

19 So. 204

73 Miss. 584

TOM THOMPSON v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 10, 1896

October 1895

FROM the circuit court of Franklin county HON. WM. P. CASSEDY Judge.

Upon the trial of the appellant for grand larceny, testimony was introduced by the state to the effect that he was found in possession of the mare alleged to have been stolen, under circumstances of a somewhat suspicious nature; that he said he had traded for the animal; and that, upon his apprehension, he tried to bribe one of his captors, and voluntarily confessed that he had stolen the mare to several of them.

The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, denied the theft and also denied having made any confession of guilt. In his denial of the confession he was supported to some extent by the testimony of several witnesses; he also introduced testimony tending to show an alibi. The instruction condemned by the court is set out in full in the opinion.

Judgment reversed.

Cassedy & Cassedy, for the appellant.

1. There can be no doubt that the first instruction for the state is erroneous. Similar and almost identical instructions have been several times condemned by the supreme court of this state. Brown v. State, 32 Miss. 433; Hogsett v. State, 40 Miss. 522; French v. Sale, 63 Miss. 391; Railway Co. v. Whitehead, 71 Miss. 451.

2. Without the confession the evidence was not sufficient to justify a conviction. A complete alibi was proved, and, apart from the confession, there is nothing to disprove the account defendant gave of his possession.

Wiley N. Nash, attorney-general, for the state.

The evidence in relation to the confession went to the jury without objection on the part of the accused, and it was not improper to instruct the jury with reference to it as a part of the evidence. No objection was made at the proper time. Hogsett v. State, 40 Miss. 527. If the first instruction for the state be erroneous it does not necessarily follow that the judgment of the lower court should be reversed. The evidence shows a clear case of guilt.

OPINION

COOPER, C. J.

By the first instruction given for the state, the court informed the jury "that a confession freely and voluntarily made is among the best evidence known to the law, and, if the jury believe, from the evidence in this case, that defendant did make such a confession, then they are authorized to consider this in connection with the other evidence in the case, and if, from all the evidence, they believe he did take, steal and carry away the mare, they should find the defendant guilty."

We have never perceived upon what principle the trial courts have acted in singling out particular portions of the evidence in a cause, and telling the jury that it ought or might consider this, that or another part of the evidence, in connection with the other evidence, in reaching a verdict. By admitting the evidence the court has...