Williams v. State, 50116

Decision Date25 January 1978
Docket NumberNo. 50116,50116
PartiesEdgar M. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

J. W. Kellum, Sumner, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Frankie Walton White, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and BOWLING, JJ.

BROOM, Justice, for the Court:

Murder conviction and life imprisonment sentence resulted from trial of Edgar M. Williams (defendant, appellant) in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Tallahatchie County. As grounds for a new trial, it is argued that the trial court committed reversible error in (1) admitting into evidence photographs of the victim's body, (2) granting state's instruction No. 4, and (3) refusing to grant certain defense instructions. We reverse.

Testimony indicates that the defendant was an employee of a drug store in Charleston, Mississippi. During late afternoon, December 19, 1974, he went from the drug store to a nearby hardware store where he obtained a 12-gauge automatic shotgun which he loaded. He promptly returned to the drug store and fatally shot a coemployee, Reardon. While shooting Reardon, the defendant stated: "I am going to put an end to this kidding me about bird hunting . . . ." Present was one Aultman (owner of the drug store) who, after hearing the statement and witnessing the shooting, asked the defendant if he realized what he had done. Answer of the defendant was affirmative. The arresting officer, Campbell, testified that at the time he arrested the defendant it was stated by the defendant that "they pushed me too far." Asserted by the defendant as his defense was the proposition that he was insane at the time of the killing.

Admitted into evidence over objection were photographs and x-rays of the body of the deceased. At the time these items were introduced, the corpus delicti and identity of the deceased had been well established by the state's witness, Dr. A. W. Hulett. Dr. Hulett said he examined John Reardon's body at the hospital emergency room and "determined that the cause of death was due to a gunshot wound of the chest." The shooting of the deceased by appellant was not denied or contradicted in any manner. Although considerable discretion is vested in trial judges as to the admissibility of photographs of the corpse of a homicide victim, such items can have no probative value upon a record such as this where the killing is not disputed in any respect. Standing alone, admission of the photographs and x-rays might not constitute reversible error, but at retrial the items should not be admitted upon a similar record.

WAS STATE'S INSTRUCTION NO. 4 ERRONEOUSLY GRANTED? This instruction was:

The Court instructs the jury that the jury itself is not deprived of the right to use common sense or of applying the lessons of human experience in resolving the question of whether the defendant had or had not appreciated the nature and consequences of his act and did or did not know that it was wrong, and that even though there is an expert opinion of a psychiatrist, his opinion is not conclusive on that issue. (Emphasis added.)

We think that upon this record the granting of this instruction constitutes reversible error, notwithstanding it may be said to be a correct statement of law in abstract form. In the state's brief the statement is made that "the county attorney noted that the instruction was drawn verbatim from the case of Smith v. State, 245 So.2d 583, 585 (Miss.1971), wherein the Court said:

. . . . It was the prerogative of the jury, and it was its duty, to consider all of this evidence. The jury was not deprived of the right to use common sense or of applying the lessons of human experience in resolving the question of whether the appellant had or had not appreciated the nature and consequences of his act and had or had not known that it was wrong. The expert opinions of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Billiot v. State, 54960
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1984
    ... ... Evidentiary value can be found in describing the circumstances of the killing and the corpus delicti, Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 266 (Miss.1978), in describing the location of the body and the cause of death, Ashley v. State, supra, and in supplementing or ... ...
  • Davis v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1996
    ...value of photographs can be found in describing circumstances of the killing and the corpus delicti." Id. at 460 (citing Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 266 (Miss.1978)). In this instance, the trial court properly admitted the photograph into evidence. Without objection, the State introduced i......
  • Shell v. State, 03-DP-0087
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 29, 1989
    ...been established. Sharp v. State, 446 So.2d 1008, 1009 (Miss.1984); Shearer v. State, 423 So.2d 824, 827 (Miss.1982); Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 266, 267 (Miss.1978). Williams v. State, 544 So.2d 782, 785 This Court, however, did hold that a trial judge abused his discretion in McNeal v. ......
  • Edwards v. State, 97-DP-00566-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1999
    ...found that photographs of a victim have evidentiary value when they aid in describing the circumstances of the killing, Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 266 (Miss.1978); describe the location of the body and cause of death, Ashley v. State, 423 So.2d 1311 (Miss. 1982); or supplement or clarify ......
  • 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