Westbrook v. State

Decision Date13 October 1947
Docket Number36592.
Citation202 Miss. 426,32 So.2d 251
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesWESTBROOK v. STATE.

Hugh V. Wall, of Brookhaven, and C. F. Cowart, of Meadville, for appellant.

Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and R. O. Arrington Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

GRIFFITH, Presiding Justice.

Appellant was indicted jointly with his brother Albert Westbrook, for the murder of Paul Walker. A severance was had, and on the separate trial of appellant, hereinafter called the defendant, he was convicted.

The testimony on the part of the prosecution as well as that of the defendant, looking to the entire record, shows overwhelmingly that only two persons took part in the difficulty, the deceased being one of them, of course; and it is undisputed that only one shot was fired. Other than the two participants, the mail carrier was the only person who saw any part of the difficulty or who was near enough at the time to say dependably what happened in it. He says that he was approaching, and that as he came over the hill he saw two men tusseling in the road about 75 or 100 feet from the mailbox. He thought they were boys tusseling in the road, and that he stopped at the mailbox and gave no further attention to the two men until he had finished has duties at the mailbox and had reached the point where the men were, and there he noticed that they had separated and that one of them was staggering as if drunk, and because he feared the staggering man might get in the path of his car, he centered his attention solely on him and as he got to the man he saw that it was Walker. He did not notice and did not recognize the other party. He says he did not see any shooting and did not hear the sound of it. Other than that two persons were present and that he saw them tusseling in the road, the testimony of the mail carrier touches substantially no disputed point material to the case.

It is undisputed that defendant was beaten and bruised about the face and head, and it is undisputed that this was done by the deceased. It is undisputed that in the fight, so called defendant's glasses were broken and it is undisputed that when the sheriff arrived and made his investigation at the scene, he picked up one of the lenses of the glasses in the road at point A, later to be more particularly mentioned.

Two neighbors who lived about 100 yards from the scene, as they estimate it, but about a quarter of a mile according to other witnesses arrived upon it almost immediately. They testified that only one person other than the wounded man was there. They further said, however, that the other person was Albert Westbrook and that the defendant was not there. Inasmuch as the undisputed physical facts demonstrate beyond all doubt that defendant was there and inasmuch as there was present only one person other than the deceased the conclusion is inescapable that the two neighbors in their excitement mistook defendant for his brother Albert, as well may have been because the defendant who wore glasses was then without them and was several yards away, and because defendant at the time lived about twenty miles away and the two witnesses did not know that he had returned the night before on a visit. At any rate, Albert Westbrook was not there and had nothing whatever to do with the difficulty, according to the four corners of this record.

Inasmuch, then, as defendant was the only person present other than deceased, he was the only surviving person who knew the facts of the difficulty. As already stated, the mail carrier passed along the scene, but his testimony does not in any substantial particular displace or dispute the testimony of the defendant.

It has been firmly established by a long line of decisions in this state, of which Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207 147 So. 481, is typical, that where the defendant is the only surviving witness to a homicide his version of what occurred must, if reasonable, be accepted as true unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by the physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge, and that it is not enough to contradict that version in mere matters of detail which do not go to the controlling substance. It is fundamental that convictions of crime cannot be sustained on proof which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Fisher v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 16 d3 Outubro d3 1985
    ...(Miss.1985); Bennett v. State, 374 So.2d 803, 805 (Miss.1979); Martin v. State, 361 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1978); Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426, 432-33, 32 So.2d 251, 252 (1947). We must keep well in mind this separate articulation of the State's burden of proof as we consider these assignm......
  • Kolberg v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 29 d4 Agosto d4 2002
    ...Hester v. State, 463 So.2d 1087, 1093 (Miss.1985) and Hemphill v. State, 304 So.2d 654, 655 (Miss.1974) quoting Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426, 32 So.2d 251, 251 (1947)). We must accept the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all reasonable, favorable inferences.......
  • Goodin v. State, 1999-DP-00975-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 17 d4 Maio d4 2001
    ...going forward misled the jury and denied him a fundamental right. In support of this argument, Goodin cites Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426, 432-33, 32 So.2d 251, 252 (Miss.1947), in which this Court stated, "[i]t is fundamental that convictions of crime cannot be sustained by proof which......
  • Burleson v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 21 d4 Maio d4 2015
    ...innocence.” Leflore v. State, 535 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1988) ; Montgomery v. State, 515 So.2d 845, 848 (Miss.1987) ; Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426, 32 So.2d 251, 251 (1947).¶ 43. I also agree with the plurality's well-reasoned analysis that the trial court erred by allowing an amendment t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT