Wages v. State, 37698
| Decision Date | 04 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 37698,37698 |
| Citation | 210 Miss. 187,49 So.2d 246 |
| Parties | WAGES v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Edward J. Bogen, Greenville, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., Geo. H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appeal is from a conviction for burglary. It is practically conceded that the evidence was sufficient to make a case for the jury and we so find. The errors assigned are: (1) the giving of an instruction for the State after the jury had retired to consider its verdict; and (2) the giving of an instruction for the State.
With reference to the first assignment, the record discloses that after the jury had retired and during their deliberations:
'One of the jurors, Mr. Haxton, stated to the Court that they were confused as to the indictment and that what they wanted to know was that if they believed that the defendant had something to do with the crime charged or the planning of it but was not actually present at the commission of the crime, i. e., unlawfully breaking and entering the house, could they still find the defendant guilty.
'Mr. Sanders: Whereupon, at the request of the State, and over the objection of the Defendant, instruction No. 3 for the State was granted by the Court and delivered to the jury, and instruction No. 4 for the Defendant was presented to the Court for approval and refused.' The judge stated that the following proceedings were thereupon had: 'When the jury reported, through their bailiff, that they desired further instruction, the Court had them come into open court in front of the bench and inquired of them what it was they wanted to know and informed the jury that the Court was unable to give them any instructions except in writing, such as might be requested by attorneys for the State and for the Defendant, and returned them to their room for further deliberations.
'Mr. Sanders: The instruction given to the jury for the State was presented to the Defendant's counsel for examination and reading before submission.'
While an orderly procedure would require that all instructions be submitted before the jury retires, accent is upon a clear understanding of, and instruction upon, the controlling issues, and not upon procedural formulas. In the absence of prejudice, it is more important what the jurors are instructed upon than when it is done, unless they are secretly instructed. Here, the defendant was apprised of the request by the State for an instruction to meet the jury's inquiry, and indeed the defendant requested an additional charge to meet it, which was refused. There was no request for further argument in the light of the legal principles thus presented. We find no reversible error in the course followed. Goss v. State, 205 Miss. 177, 38 So.2d 700.
The second assignment is directed to an instruction for the State, allegedly the one granted under the circumstances mentioned above. Its substance is as follows: '* * * if you believe * * * that Hollis Wages alone, or in conjunction with others * * * did break and enter * * * and that he or they did * * * steal * * * and that the defendant Grady Wages * * * did assist, abet, counsel and take part in the planning and carrying out of said crime * * * that he is guilty as charged in the indictment * * *.'
The indictment charged burglary but the evidence, chiefly circumstantial, indicates that the defendant was at least an accessory. He was therefore liable as a principal. Code 1942, Section 1995.
Objections to the instruction hover about the limited premise that Hollis Wages, acting alone or in conjunction with others, committed the actual breaking. The proof as to burglary by Hollis Wages is scant. He is a brother of the defendant and was jointly indicted but granted a severance. On the night of the burglary, Hollis borrowed the truck of the appellant which shortly thereafter was found to contain bits of broken materials identified as having come from an iron safe of the type stolen during the burglary. Other incriminating articles were discovered in the truck. Bits of insulating materials similar to those found in the truck were also detected in a broom in defendant's place of business and in clothing belonging to him. The broken safe was located in a drainage ditch several miles from the scene. There were other incriminating details which need not be set out. The corpus delicti was fully proven.
The interesting question is presented whether the State has limited the bases for conviction to a finding that Hollis Wages alone or with others committed the burglary. Without doubt it need not have done so since it is not prerequisite that the identity of the principal be shown in order to convict an accessory. While guilt of an accessory presupposes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galloway v. State
...from the jury, and under such circumstances quite properly may give the jury additional written instructions. See Wages v. State, 210 Miss. 187, 49 So.2d 246 (1950). The second recommendation requires the trial judge to constantly bear in mind that justice in every trial requires communicat......
-
Willie v. State
...inquiry from the jury, and under such circumstances quite properly may give the jury additional written instructions. SeeWages v. State , 210 Miss. 187, 49 So.2d 246 (1950).The second recommendation requires the trial judge to constantly bear in mind that justice in every trial requires com......
-
Davis v. State
... ... Compare Wages v. State, 210 ... Page 913 ... Miss. 187 at 190, 49 So.2d 246 at 247 (1950) (where evidence demonstrated that defendant was at least an ... ...
-
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Ala
...169 La. 468, 471—472, 125 So. 451, 452 (1929); State v. Haines, 51 La.Ann. 731, 25 So. 372, 44 L.R.A. 837 (1899); Wages v. State, 210 Miss. 187, 190, 49 So.2d 246, 248 (1950); State v. Cushing, 61 Nev. 132, 146, 120 P.2d 208, 215 (1941); State v. Hess, 233 Wis. 4, 8—9, 288 N.W. 275, 277 (19......