Weaver v. State, 47128
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | BROOM; The principles of law applicable here were enunciated by this Court, speaking through Patterson; GILLESPIE |
| Citation | 272 So.2d 636 |
| Parties | Wesley WEAVER v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Docket Number | No. 47128,47128 |
| Decision Date | 22 January 1973 |
Page 636
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
T. N. Gore, Jr., Marks, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gilfoy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
BROOM, Justice:
In the Circuit Court of Quitman County, the appellant, Wesley Weaver, was convicted of a felony, to-wit: Assault and battery with intent to kill. He appeals from said conviction and assigns as error only that the jury which tried him was erroneously allowed to disperse and separate during the trial.
The facts are simple. Before the testimony began, but after completion of jury selection, the following oral instructions were given the jury by the circuit judge prior to allowing the jurors to disperse for a fifteen minute break:
COURT: . . . We are not going to lock up the jury because this is a case less than capital. But, I want to give you these instructions, and these instructions will prevail throughout the trial of this case, so listen very, very carefully. . . . I must extract from you these promises; and these promises must be rigidly followed. You must not at any time discuss this case with anyone, nor permit anyone to discuss this case with you; when you go home during the noon hour or during recess periods, don't even discuss it among yourselves. You shall not deliberate on this case until all the evidence has been presented to you; that is, for the State of Mississippi, for the defendant, until you have heard the instructions of the Court for both sides, and arguments of counsel for both sides. At that point and that point alone, you will then, for the first time, begin to discuss the case among yourselves. Don't discuss the case over the telephone with anybody when you go home; don't discuss it with your husbands, or your wives, or any of your relatives or anybody else. . . . And, these instructions must be rigidly
Page 637
followed. And, if anybody attempts to talk to you about this case at any time, during any recess period or any other time, please convey that to me, and I will deal with that party accordingly. . . . If you will follow those instructions, we will take a fifteen minute break, and be back in fifteen minutes, and we will begin the trial.Admittedly this took place in open court in the presence of the appellant and counsel who made no objection at the time of such occurrence. Witnesses were then sworn and the rule invoked. Several witnesses then testified for the state. Then the following transpired just prior to a noon recess during which the jurors went their separate ways.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will take a break for our noon recess. Please remember the instructions I gave you with reference to discussing this case with anybody or having anybody discuss it with you, and also about even discussing it at home. If somebody asks you what you are doing on the jury, or what case you're trying, just say, 'I'm trying a criminal case, and I'm not permitted to talk about it.' Don't try to get anybody's opinion on the case. When you return from the noon hour, we're going to recess until 1:30, and when you get back to the courtroom, do not mingle with the spectators and do not mingle with the witnesses or lawyers or anybody else. Just take your seats where you are seated now, and we will proceed from there. Following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State, No. 07-KA-59203
...that a "presumption [exists] that jurors follow the instructions of the court relative to their conduct during the course of the trial." 272 So.2d 636, 638 (Miss.1973), quoted in Stringer v. State, 279 So.2d 156, 160 (Miss.1973). The Court added that it will not conclude that prejudice resu......
-
Watts v. State, No. 96-DP-01030-SCT.
...cannot be waived either by the attorney for the accused or at the discretion of the trial court." Id. at 629. See also Weaver v. State, 272 So.2d 636, 638 (Miss.1973)("if this were a capital case, dispersal and separation of jurors would be reversible error even if permitted with the consen......
-
Lattimore v. State, No. 2002-KA-01853-SCT.
...to the contrary we could not say that a defendant in a case less than capital was prejudiced by separation of the jury." Weaver v. State, 272 So.2d 636, 638 (Miss. 1973). ¶38. As early as 1870, however, Mississippi courts have zealously guarded the integrity of the jury verdict in those cas......
-
Kirk v. State, No. 2013–KA–01742–SCT.
...for the accused or at the discretion of the trial court.” Cox v. State, 365 So.2d 627, 629 (Miss.1978).¶ 52. As in Weaver v. State, 272 So.2d 636, 638 (Miss.1973), “[t]he case before us is not a capital case.” Aggravated domestic violence, for which Kirk was indicted and ultimately convicte......
-
King v. State, 07-KA-59203
...that a "presumption [exists] that jurors follow the instructions of the court relative to their conduct during the course of the trial." 272 So.2d 636, 638 (Miss.1973), quoted in Stringer v. State, 279 So.2d 156, 160 (Miss.1973). The Court added that it will not conclude that prejudice resu......
-
Watts v. State, 96-DP-01030-SCT.
...cannot be waived either by the attorney for the accused or at the discretion of the trial court." Id. at 629. See also Weaver v. State, 272 So.2d 636, 638 (Miss.1973)("if this were a capital case, dispersal and separation of jurors would be reversible error even if permitted with the consen......
-
Lattimore v. State, 2002-KA-01853-SCT.
...to the contrary we could not say that a defendant in a case less than capital was prejudiced by separation of the jury." Weaver v. State, 272 So.2d 636, 638 (Miss. 1973). ¶38. As early as 1870, however, Mississippi courts have zealously guarded the integrity of the jury verdict in those cas......
-
Stringer v. State, 47119
...to the jurors being transported by taxicab to the motel and made no objection to their staying in the motel. In Weaver v. State, 272 So.2d 636 (Miss.1973), this Court The principles of law applicable here were enunciated by this Court, speaking through Patterson, J., in the case of Rogers v......