Triplett v. State

• Decision Date: 09 February 1931
• Docket Number: 29206
• Citation: Triplett v. State, 159 Miss. 365, 132 So. 448 (Miss. 1931)
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: TRIPLETT v. STATE

132 So. 448

159 Miss. 365

TRIPLETT v. STATE

No. 29206

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 9, 1931

Division B

APPEAL from circuit court of Winston county, HON. JNO. F. ALLEN Judge.

Louis Triplett was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Rodgers & Prisock and R. C. Jones, all of Louisville, for appellant.

The verdict of the jury returned in this case finds the defendant guilty of no crime known to law.

The verdict of the jury in this case is in the following words "we the jury find the defendant guilty of maslaughter." Maslaughter is a compound word, both of which have well defined and established meaning. The rule of idem sonans has no application, nor can it have in this case. There is no incorrect grammar, both words are spelled correctly, ma-slaughter. The rule of idem sonans is only in case of bad spelling.

Wooldridge v. State, 13 Tex.App. 443, 44 Am. Rep. 708.

The verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence and the law.

The verdict of the jury is contrary to law and void, because the jury returned a verdict contrary to the instructions given to the jury by the court, and relied on by the state and defendant as the law and all the law applicable in the case at bar.

A verdict rendered in a plain disregard of the instructions of the court should be set aside without an examination of the instructions to determine whether they are correct or not.

McAllister v. Rocky Fork Coal Company, 78 P. 595; Haslam v. Barge, 69 Nebr. 644, 96 N.W. 245; Jackson v. State, 118 Ga. 780, 45 S.E. 604; Driskill v. State, 7 Ind. 338; Mahoney v. Dankwart, 108 Iowa 321, 79 N.W. 134; Boswell v. Draper, 149 Iowa 725; State v. Wong Si Sam, 63 Ore. 266, 127 P. 683; Holton v. State, 137 Ga. 86, 72 S.E. 949.

Appellant objected to the introduction of the coat, because the witness testified to the fact that it had been washed and everyone knows that when a jumper is washed it draws up several inches. If the jumper had been the one that the negro was shot in, the place it entered the body through the jumper could not be evidenced, because they failed to bring in the shirt that the dead negro, wore, and it would have been closer to the body than the jumper, and would have been tucked in his trousers and not flying about, in other words, the jumper was not the proper evidence because it was calculated to mislead the jury unless the underwear, and shirt would have been introduced.

Wm. A. Shipman, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

Manifestly the jury, after deliberation and consideration of the evidence and the instructions of the court intended to and in truth did find the appellant guilty of manslaughter. This was the crime of which they found the appellant guilty and whether the form in which the word appears in the record is the result of a clerical error on the part of the transcriber or an original mistake in spelling is immaterial.

Cro. Jac. 607; 10 Co. 133a; 2 Rolle, Abr. 147; 1 Chitty Cr. L., 3 Bou. L. Dic., p. 3110.

Errors which cannot mislead and are manifestly clerical afford no ground for an arrest of judgment.

Com. v. McMahon, 133 Mass. 394; State v. Dodson, 16 S.C. 453.

A verdict finding the defendant guilty of "mansluder" was held good as a conviction of manslaughter.

State v. Smith, 33 La. Ann. 33.

A verdict fixing the punishment at two years in the state "penitenilery" was held valid.

Hoy v. State, 11 Tex.App. 32.

Whatever conveys the idea to the common understanding will suffice and all fair intendment will be made to support it.

2 Bish. New Cr. Proc. (2 Ed.), section 1005a; State v. Ryan, 13 Minn. 370; Singleton et al. v. Sodusky, 7 J. J. March Ky. 341; Kellum v. State, 64 Miss. 226; Rolls v. State, 56 Miss. 391.

The jury might well have returned a verdict for murder. They, however, saw fit to convict the appellant of the lesser crime, manslaughter, which does credit to their sensibilities whatever may be thought of their ability of ratiocination. That the appellant escaped conviction of the crime of which, according to the testimony on behalf of the state, he is obviously guilty should be cause for mighty self-felicitation.

This court will not interfere with the jury's finding.

Steward v. State, 154 Miss. 858, 123 So. 891; Matthews v. State, 148 Miss. 696; Wells v. State, 112 Miss. 76; Jackson v. State, 105 Miss. 782; Brown v. State, 103 Miss. 639.

OPINION

Ethridge, P. J.

Louis Triplett, the appellant, was indicted for murder in the circuit court of Winston county, and upon trial was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years in the state penitentiary; from which conviction he appeals here.

It will not be necessary to set forth the substance of the testimony for the state and for the defendant. Suffice it to say that the tendency of the state's evidence was to make the case one of murder, while the tendency of the defendant's evidence was to make the case one of self-defense. Nevertheless there were numerous witnesses introduced whose testimony is contained in the record, and there is considerable variance in the testimony of the different witnesses, and there was, no doubt, an imperfect seeing and understanding by the witnesses. The state did not ask a manslaughter instruction and neither did the defendant. The only mention of manslaughter in the instructions of the court is in one obtained for the defendant which does not define it but merely says: "The court instructs the jury for the defendant that neither murder nor manslaughter is predicatible of the mere fact that a deadly weapon was used where all the facts of the homicide are before the jury in the testimony of a large number of witnesses."

It is argued that inasmuch as the court did not define "maslaughter" and inasmuch as the instruction on the form of the verdict limited the jury to the three forms of verdict provided for convictions of murder in case the jury found him guilty, that a conviction of manslaughter should not be allowed to stand. In discussing this question counsel recognize the decision of the court in Calicoat v. State, 131 Miss. 169, 95 So. 318, wherein this court held that a person convicted of manslaughter instead of murder could not complain if the evidence showed that the killing was unlawful and wrongful, although the evidence might show it constituted murder instead of manslaughter. The court in that decision reviewed the prior decisions, some of which had held in accordance with the holding in the Calicoat case and some of which had held the contrary view. It seems that the decision of Calicoat v. State, and others since that decision, make it clear that the court will adhere to the decision there...