Wallace v. State
| Decision Date | 14 June 1948 |
| Docket Number | 36851. |
| Citation | 35 So.2d 703,203 Miss. 504 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WALLACE v. STATE. |
Cohn & Hobbs, of Brookhaven, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and R. O. Arrington Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted for the murder of J. C. Wallace; was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to the state penitentiary for fifteen years. He appeals.
The court admitted in evidence X-ray pictures showing the course of the bullet through, and the place of its lodgment in, the head of the deceased. Appellant says that was reversible error because, it was not shown, with sufficient certainty the pictures were accurately made, nor that Dr. Frank Lea Butler, who explained them to the jury, had the required skill and knowledge to interpret them. The evidence on these questions is that the victim was taken to the McComb City Hospital, McComb, Mississippi, immediately after being shot in the head with a pistol by appellant; that the injured man lived only a short time, and that after his death the X-ray pictures in question were taken; that these were made with the machine and instruments used in that hospital for that purpose, and were preserved as a record of the hospital that they were taken by Dr. T. L. Moore, assisted by Dr. Frank Lea Butler, both professionally connected with the hospital. In addition to the foregoing facts, it is shown that Dr. Butler graduated at the University of Tennessee Medical College in 1939; that later he served an internship at Grace Hospital, Detroit, Michigan. He then practiced medicine in the Marine Corps for three and a half years, and has engaged in the general practice of medicine since 1941. He said he had never taken a technical course of study directed particularly to making or reading X-ray pictures, but he had studied both subjects as a part of his medical course, and his practical experience therein, both as a student and in the practice of medicine, had been extensive. He said the pictures in question were accurately taken and interpreted. There was no evidence intimating the contrary. The trial judge heard the foregoing evidence preliminary to its admission before the jury. He held that the pictures were competent and that the learning and experience of Dr. Butler qualified him to interpret them. We think he was correct in both respects. 'The process of X-ray photography is now well established as a method of securing a reliable representation of the bones of the human body, the location of growths and foreign substances in the body * * *.' 20 Am.Jur., p. 614, Sec. 736. They are admissible 'on authentication which satisfies court that thing or person is fairly portrayed, and question of competency of X-ray pictures is a preliminary one, addressed to sound discretion of court.' Gulf Research Development Co. v. Linder, 177 Miss. 123, 170 So. 646; Howell v. George, Miss., 30 So.2d 603; 20 Am.Jur. p. 609, Sec. 730. We cannot say the trial court erred in admitting these pictures in evidence.
As to the qualifications of Dr. Butler to interpret the pictures, this question is also one normally addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. 'Any person who has, by sufficient experience, acquired adequate knowledge of X-rays and their interpretation may qualify as a witness.' 20 Am.Jur., p. 692, Sec. 822. It is a general rule that for one to testify as an expert it is not necessary that he be infallible or possess the highest degree of skill. It is sufficient if he possesses peculiar knowledge, wisdom, or information regarding the subject matter, acquired by study, investigation, observation, experience or practice, not possessed by the ordinary layman or inexperienced person. King v. King, 161 Miss. 51, 134 So. 827. It is evident, we think, from the foregoing evidence that Dr. Butler was well qualified to interpret these pictures, especially when considered in connection with the record admission of appellant, when Dr. Butler was offered as a witness, that he was qualified in the general practice of medicine.
There are two other reasons why the admission of these pictures and their interpretation was not error in this case. The first is that, although the pictures are not with the record and we have not seen them, we gather they plainly show the entrance course of and lodgment of this bullet. They needed no interpretation. They were before the jury and the jurors themselves could discern the foregoing facts therefrom. The other reason is there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. State
...341 (1961); Triplett v. State, 230 Miss. 707, 93 So.2d 654 (1957); Faust v. State, 221 Miss. 668, 74 So.2d 817 (1954); Wallace v. State, 203 Miss. 504, 35 So.2d 703 (1948); Crockerham v. State, 202 Miss. 25, 30 So.2d 417 (1947); Thomas v. State, 103 Miss. 800, 60 So. 781 (1912); Taylor v. S......
-
United States v. Wier
...injuries to the foot generally even though he had not had the training ordinarily required of a physician. And in Wallace v. State, 1948, 203 Miss. 504, 35 So.2d 703, 704, the Supreme Court of Mississippi quoted 20 Am.Jur. page 692 in its statement that: "Any person who has, by sufficient e......
-
Henry v. State
...is not likely to be possessed by laymen. Glen Falls Ins. Co. v. Linwood Elevator, 241 Miss. 400, 130 So.2d 602 (1961); Wallace v. State, 203 Miss. 504, 35 So.2d 703 (1948); Floyd v. State, 166 Miss. 15, 148 So. 226 For failing to discover the bill of sale of the backhoe to appellant, this c......
-
Sullivan v. State
...663, 65 So. 648; Delta Chevrolet Co. v. Waid, 211 Miss. 256, 51 So.2d 443; Powell v. State, 195 Miss. 161, 13 So.2d 622; Wallace v. State, 203 Miss. 504, 35 So.2d 703; Sims v. State, 209 Miss. 545, 47 So.2d 879; Hancock v. State, 209 Miss. 523, 47 So.2d 833; Orr v. Columbus & Greenville Ry.......