Williams v. State
| Citation | 26 So.2d 64 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1946 |
| Docket Number | 35911. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
F D. Hewitt and W. G. McLain, both of McComb, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and Geo. H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.
Under an indictment charging him with the crime of murder, the appellant, Johnie Williams, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to serve a term of seven years in the State penitentiary.
In prosecuting this appeal, he assigns the following grounds of error: (1) The denial of his application for a continuance (2) the refusal to grant a peremptory instruction in his favor; (3) the alleged failure of the State to prove the corpus delicti; (4) the action of the trial court in permitting the State to reopen the case; (5) the refusal to excuse certain witnesses from the rule who were to be used only as character witnesses to prove the defendant's good reputation for peace or violence; (6) the limiting of the special venire to forty men; (7) the action of the court in requiring the case to be completed on the night of the second day of the trial after six of the jurors had been kept 'locked up' on juries during the three preceding nights; (8) the refusal of certain instructions on behalf of the defendant; (9) that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the credible evidence; and (10) the overruling of the defendant's motion for a new trial.
The ground of error most strongly urged here is the denial of the continuance of the case. The homicide occurred on October 31, 1944, and the defendant was arraigned under the indictment on March 23, 1945. The case was called on March 26th to be set for trial, which was the day following the tragic death in an automobile accident of the mother-in-law of the daughter of one of the attorneys for the defendant, and in which accident other members of the family were seriously injured. The motion of the defendant was that the case be continued for the term, and the not that it be set for trial during the third week of the term. The court overruled the motion, set the case for trial on March 29th, and at the instance of the State ordered a special venire of forty men to be summoned for that date. No objection was made by the defendant to the proposed number of special veniremen, insofar as the record discloses.
It appears that on March 26th, when the case was called and set for trial, the date of the funeral for the victim of the automobile accident was indefinite, awaiting the arrival of relatives, but it was conducted on the day before the trial began on the 29th. And while we appreciate and sympathize with the troubled state of mind which defendant's attorney was experiencing, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kendall v. State
...fraud. Riley v. State, 208 Miss. 336, 44 So.2d 455 (1950). See also Harrison v. State, 168 Miss. 699, 152 So. 494 (1934); Williams v. State, 26 So.2d 64 (Miss.1946); Code Sec. 1796. The provisions of the law in relation to the listing, drawing, summoning and empaneling juries are directory.......
-
Rogers v. State
...did not constitute an abuse of discretion. There was no prejudice from the action. Lewis v. State, Miss., 56 So.2d 397; Williams v. State, Miss., 26 So.2d 64; Morris v. State, 148 Miss. 680, 114 So. 750; State v. Martin, 102 Miss. 165, 59 So. The indictment charged that the defendant 'felon......
-
Robinson v. State
...fraud. Riley v. State, 208 Miss. 336, 44 So.2d 455 (1950). See also Harrison v. State, 168 Miss. 699, 152 So. 494 (1934); Williams v. State, 26 So.2d 64 (Miss.1946); Code Sec. 1796. The provisions of the law in relation to the listing, drawing, summoning and empaneling juries are directory.......
-
State v. Cota, 1559
...defendant is not denied a full and fair opportunity to rebut the additional evidence. Williams v. State, Miss.Sup.Ct. (no state report) 26 So.2d 64; Anglin v. State, 215 Ark. 49, 219 S.W.2d Affirmed. LOCKWOOD, C. J., and UDALL, J., concurring. ...