Walker v. State
| Decision Date | 05 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | 36439. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WALKER v. STATE. |
Ely B. Mitchell, of Corinth, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and Geo. H. Ethridge Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter. The assignments of error are comprised within the contention that evidence was shown of a separate crime from that alleged.
The testimony relevant to our discussion is that appellant shot deceased with a shotgun which was thrust through a screen door. Immediately thereafter, he turned and shot deceased's wife, though not fatally. In both instances there was testimony to establish justification. Since we find that the conflicts in testimony made an issue for the jury we shall not further comment upon the facts.
It is elemental that proof of a crime, distinct from the one charged, will not be allowed. Augustine v. State Miss., 28 So.2d 243. We examine, therefore, only whether the shooting of the wife was a disconnected and irrelevant act. The record reveals animosity between appellant on the one hand, and the deceased and his wife on the other. It was manifested in verbal skirmishes in which barbed and brutish epithets were hurled. The victim's wife counseled summary dispatch of appellant. They shared a single roof, compelling a propinquity which generated friction and overheated temper.
The two crimes were inseparable components of the completed incident. Had appellant been put to trial for shooting the wife, the killing of the husband would have been an inevitable and relevant disclosure of the res gestae. The sequence is not material; it is their integration into the incident, interwoven with similar provocation and purpose which makes it impractical to draw a curtain at the end of any particular act behind which the jury may not peer. Mackie v. State, 138 Miss. 740, 103 So. 379; Wilson v. State, Miss., 30 So.2d 62.
The error assigned with reference to testimony regarding blood stains upon the floor and screen door serves to illustrate the basis for the foregoing conclusions. It is contended that since both spouses were wounded, it was error to draw the incident of the latter shooting into view by injecting doubt as to whose blood had caused the stains. It is the commingling of the blood of the two stricken almost simultaneously, which, defying identification, symbolizes the fusing of all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leedom v. State, No. 1999-KA-01754-SCT.
...which makes it impractical to draw a curtain at the end of any particular act behind which the jury may not peer." Walker v. State, 201 Miss. 780, 782, 30 So.2d 239 (1947). Evidence of other bad acts is thus admissible regardless of whether they occur before or after the charged offense. Wh......
-
Leedon v. State, No. 1999-KA-01754-SCT.
...which makes it impractical to draw a curtain at the end of any particular act behind which the jury may not peer." Walker v. State, 201 Miss. 780, 782, 30 So.2d 239 (1947). Evidence of other bad acts is thus admissible regardless of whether they occur before or after the charged offense. Wh......
-
Sharp v. State
...it was part of the res gestae. The same bullet that killed deceased also struck the child she was holding in her arms. Walker v. State, 201 Miss. 780, 30 So.2d 239. (141 So.2d at From the foregoing discussion of both the evidence and the law, it is clear that the one assignment of error pro......
-
Ford v. State
...See also, Strickland v. State, 209 So.2d 840 (Miss.1968); West v. State, 218 Miss. 397, 67 So.2d 366 (Miss.1953); Walker v. State, 201 Miss. 780, 30 So.2d 239 (Miss.1947). We further note that while somewhat helpful, Reddix, Strickland, West and Walker do not dispose of this issue in the ca......