Warfield v. State
| Decision Date | 29 November 1909 |
| Citation | 96 Miss. 170,50 So. 561 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | ELMORE WARFIELD v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
October 1909
FROM the circuit court of Warren county, HON. JOHN N. BUSH, Judge.
Warfield the appellant, was indicted and tried for the murder of his wife, was convicted, sentenced to the penitentiary for life and appealed to the supreme court.
The opinion of the court sufficiently states the facts. The affidavit of Maganos, read on the hearing of appellant's motion for a new trial, referred to in the opinion, affirms that the affiant, having been summoned as a special venire-man, was present in court (although not impaneled on the jury) during the trial of appellant, and that at one stage of the trial, when the court was asking the jurors in the box whether or not they had been members of the grand jury which indicted the prisoner, the prisoner was not in the court room or in the presence of the court.
The judgment of the court below was bye the supreme court affirmed, no written opinion being delivered, but, on suggestion of error the case was again considered, and the affirmance set aside as shown in the opinion.
Reversed.
R. L. C. Barrett, for appellant.
Appellant was convicted of murder. Being tried on a capital charge, he was entitled to be protected in all of his legal rights. Being an ignorant negro, the constitutional requirement that he be given a fair trial applies with possibly more force than if he were an intelligent, able, and influential white man.
As shown by the affidavit of a reputable person appellant was not in the court room when the jury was being impaneled. This constitutes reversible error. Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774, 47 So. 554; Rolls v. State, 52 Miss. 391.
George Butler, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of the atrocious murder of his wife, was ably represented in the court below, and may be thankful that he was sentenced to life imprisonment instead of to be hanged. Whether his absence from the court room, when the jury was being impaneled, constitutes reversible error is respectfully referred to this court for its determination.
It is shown by the affidavit of Maganos that the defendant was out of the court room during a part of the time the petit jury was being impaneled. The district attorney did not see proper to introduce any counter affidavit, nor was there cross-examination...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokes v. State, 41694
...Sims v. State, 209 Miss. 545, 47 So.2d 849. The cases of Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774, 47 So. 554, 20 L.R.A., N.S., 509; Warfield v. State, 96 Miss. 170, 50 So. 561, and Watkins v. State, 110 Miss. 438, 70 So. 457, were overruled by Ford v. State, 'The judge observed that the defendant di......
-
State v. Aikers
... ... of the trial, and even a voluntary absence will be ground to ... set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. State ... v. Smith , 90 Mo. 37, 1 S.W. 753, 59 Am. Rep. 4; ... Sherrod v. State , 93 Miss. 774, 47 So. 554, ... 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 509; Warfield v. State , ... 96 Miss. 170, 50 So. 561; State v. Reed , 65 ... Mont. 51, 210 P. 756 ... [87 ... Utah 516] A defendant is entitled to be safeguarded in every ... constitutional right, but should not be permitted to so ... juggle with such rights as to embarrass and delay the ... ...
-
Thomas v. State
...trial as guaranteed to him by the law of the land. We are not prepared to say that this opinion is in such conflict with the Watkins, Warfield, and Sherrod supra, as to necessitate overruling those cases. However, the rule announced here is the law. The judgment of the lower court is affirm......
-
Myers v. State
...Sims v. State, 209 Miss. 545, 47 So.2d 849. The cases of Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774, 47 So. 554, 20 L.R.A., N.S., 509; Warfield v. State, 96 Miss. 170, 50 So. 561, and Watkins v. State, 110 Miss. 438, 70 So. 457, were overruled by Ford v. State, The judge observed that the defendant did......