Williams v. State, 22364

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtETHRIDGE, J.
Citation90 So. 886,128 Miss. 271
PartiesWILLIAMS v. STATE
Decision Date13 March 1922
Docket Number22364

90 So. 886

128 Miss. 271

WILLIAMS
v.
STATE

No. 22364

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 13, 1922


CRIMINAL LAW. Forgery. Defendant not present could only be convicted as accessory before the fact; instruction should define accessory before the fact.

Where a person is indicted for a forgery, and the evidence shows he was not present aiding, assisting and encouraging the commission of the offense, and did not personally commit the alleged forgery, he can only be convicted of the offense charged on the theory that he was an accessory before the fact, under section 1026, Code of 1906 (Hemingway's Code, section 751), and in such case an instruction for the state which tells the jury that it is their duty to convict if he knew that another did the crime of forging the signature and [128 Miss. 272] that he was a party to the forgery is erroneous. The instruction should define what constitutes an accessory before the fact or charge the elements necessary to make out the crime charged.

HON. R. S. HALL, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Jones county, HON. R. S. HALL, Judge.

Charley Williams was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

B. F. Carter, for appellant.

We insist that instruction No. 1 given for the state was erroneously given. It certainly is not the law, does not follow the law, is evasive and ambiguous, and very misleading, and not warranted by the testimony. By it the jury were told that if they believed that Charles Williams the defendant (appellant here) came into possession of the check and carried it and gave it to his wife and she carried it and forged the name Mrs. Mattie Butler, on it, and that the defendant had knowledge of this and was a party to the forgery, etc., and does not even attempt to state how he was a party to the forgery in any manner. The instruction is erroneous also because there is absolutely no testimony to warrant the giving of any such instruction. Not even a shadow of testimony that he ever carried the check and gave it to his wife or that he had any knowledge that his wife had forged the name of Mrs. Mattie Butler, on the check, or that he ever knew that there was any such endorsement placed or to be placed on the said check, nor is there any testimony that he was ever in possession of this check. And so we say the instruction is all wrong because not based on the law and the evidence. Instructions should be based on the evidence in the case, and not on suppositions, or prejudicial presumptions, and certainly there was no evidence to warrant the giving of this instruction, and it simply opened up the flood gates of suspicion, prejudice, and presumption, without which we say appellant would never have been convicted in this case.

D. C. Enochs, assistant attorney-general for the state.

The appellant complains that the lower court erred in granting the instruction for the state set out on page 6 of the record. The instruction, to my mind, is so accurately drawn under the law and facts of the case that it is not debatable. I think the main objection to this instruction is that opposing counsel believes the appellant should have been granted a peremptory instruction, and that there is no evidence to support this instruction in behalf of the state.

Ordinarily, when an instruction is alleged to be erroneous, there is something about it that may be debatable; but this instruction is so perfect to me, that I see no toehold for an argument. I submit that the instruction is valid and especially applicable to the facts in this case.

OPINION

[128 Miss. 273] ETHRIDGE, J.

The appellant was indicted for forgery, tried and convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Keeton v. State, 31931
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 6, 1936
    ...proof of the corpus delicti. Harper v. State, 83 Miss. 403, 35 So. 572; Crawford v. State, 133 Miss. 147, 97 So. 534; Williams v. State, 128 Miss. 271, 90 So: 886; 12 A. L. R. 275; Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Dearing, 254 U.S. 443, 16 A. L. R. 196. The third objection to the introduction o......
  • Odom v. State, 31634
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 6, 1935
    ...are the elements of the crime of robbery. That is, the jury was not told what it takes to commit robbery. 16 C. J. 968; William v. Bates, 90 So. 886; Dedeaux v. State, 87 So. 664; Gates v. State, 135 So. 185; Poe v. State, 132 So. 92. [172 Miss. 690] An instruction is erroneous which assume......
  • Boutwell v. State, 32912
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 7, 1938
    ...bare of any evidence that she procured Sherman Sims to kill her husband. Crawford v. State, 133 Miss. 147, 97 So. 534; Williams v. State, 128 Miss. 271, 90 So. 886; 16 C. J. 972; Cryer v. State, 71 Miss. 467, 42 A. S. R. 473; Harper v. State, 83 Miss. 402, 35 So. 572; Allen v. State, 172 Mi......
  • Boutwell v. State, 30271
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 10, 1932
    ...unexplained principles which are necessarily involved in the verdict they are to find. Cochran v. State, 39 Miss. 541; Williams v. State, 90 So. 886. The advice or encouragement which will render one an accessory before the fact may be by acts or words, but it must, to create guilt, be used......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Keeton v. State, 31931
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 6, 1936
    ...proof of the corpus delicti. Harper v. State, 83 Miss. 403, 35 So. 572; Crawford v. State, 133 Miss. 147, 97 So. 534; Williams v. State, 128 Miss. 271, 90 So: 886; 12 A. L. R. 275; Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Dearing, 254 U.S. 443, 16 A. L. R. 196. The third objection to the introduction o......
  • Odom v. State, 31634
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 6, 1935
    ...are the elements of the crime of robbery. That is, the jury was not told what it takes to commit robbery. 16 C. J. 968; William v. Bates, 90 So. 886; Dedeaux v. State, 87 So. 664; Gates v. State, 135 So. 185; Poe v. State, 132 So. 92. [172 Miss. 690] An instruction is erroneous which assume......
  • Boutwell v. State, 32912
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 7, 1938
    ...bare of any evidence that she procured Sherman Sims to kill her husband. Crawford v. State, 133 Miss. 147, 97 So. 534; Williams v. State, 128 Miss. 271, 90 So. 886; 16 C. J. 972; Cryer v. State, 71 Miss. 467, 42 A. S. R. 473; Harper v. State, 83 Miss. 402, 35 So. 572; Allen v. State, 172 Mi......
  • Boutwell v. State, 30271
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 10, 1932
    ...unexplained principles which are necessarily involved in the verdict they are to find. Cochran v. State, 39 Miss. 541; Williams v. State, 90 So. 886. The advice or encouragement which will render one an accessory before the fact may be by acts or words, but it must, to create guilt, be used......
  • 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