Wilson v. State, 46876
| Citation | 264 So.2d 828 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46876,46876 |
| Parties | Obie WILSON (a/k/a O. B. Wilson) v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Bell & McBee, Robert M. Carpenter, Greenwood, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by J. B. Garretty, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Obie Wilson, also known as O. B. Wilson, was convicted of rape in the Circuit Court of Leflore County. The jury fixed his punishment at life imprisonment in the penitentiary and he was so sentenced. From that conviction and sentence he has appealed to this Court.
At his trial Wilson testified as a witness in his own behalf. He admitted that, on the occasion in question, he had intercourse with the prosecuting witness. He testified, however, that she had consented in consideration of his promise to pay her seven dollars. Wilson also admitted that he and the witness had come to blows and fought but said this had resulted from a controversy over the money. On the other hand, she denied that she had consented and testified that her physical hurts had been inflicted by Wilson in the course of overcoming her resistance and in forcing her to submit to his will. In all essential respects the evidence upon the fundamental question of consent was in irreconcilable conflict. It was for the jury, as the trier of facts, to resolve this and other incidental factual issues.
It is assigned and argued as error that the jury's verdict of guilty returned against Wilson was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
There is, as stated, no dispute that Wilson did, in fact, have intercourse with his alleged victim. The fact of intercourse was also supported by unimpeached medical evidence. The testimony given by the prosecutrix is clear and unequivocal that the act was committed by Wilson against her will, had been accomplished by him through the use of overpowering physical force and violence, and that she had resisted to the utmost of her power. Following the incident, she had been taken for examination to a hospital, where it was found that she had sustained numerous bruises on her face and body and a severe bite on the back of her shoulder. Also, the crotch of the slacks which she wore had been torn out. She had been heard to scream for help, and as the result of this her sister had summoned the police. On the arrival of the officers, Wilson fled, and later the same night, had gone to Kansas City from whence he did not return to Mississippi for about six weeks. The direct testimony of the victim, supported by that of her sister, together with the attendant facts and circumstances which tend to corroborate their testimony, sufficiently support the verdict of the jury.
In a criminal prosecution, the jury may accept testimony of some witnesses and reject that of others, it may accept in part and reject in part the testimony of any witness, or it may believe part of the evidence on behalf of the State and part of that for the accused. In other words, the credibility of witnesses is not for the reviewing court. Bond v. State, 249 Miss. 352, 162 So.2d 510 (1964).
It was the function of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve the issues. Since there was ample evidence, which if believed by the jury, justified the verdict, the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal. Murphree v. State, 228 So.2d 599 (Miss.1969).
The next matter assigned and argued as error is that appellant's counsel was unduly restricted in his examination of a witness touching the victim's general reputation for chastity. The record indicates that the incident alluded to occurred in the course of the trial following a conference between court and counsel at the bench. The fact that counsel approached the bench and conferred with the court is noted in the record but what was said is not reported. However, immediately thereafter, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughes v. State, 97-DP-00028-SCT.
...the reviewing court. Gathright v. State, 380 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Miss.1980)(citing Davis v. State, 320 So.2d 789 (Miss.1975); Wilson v. State, 264 So.2d 828 (Miss.1972); McLelland v. State, 204 So.2d 158 (Miss.1967)); see also Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297, 300-01 ¶ 178. Examining the ev......
-
Clemons v. State, DP-83
...before them. In Johnson This Court has long held, as stated in Cochran v. State, 278 So.2d 451 (Miss.1973), citing Wilson v. State, 264 So.2d 828 (Miss.1972): v. State, 477 So.2d 196, 207 (Miss.1985), the Court In a criminal prosecution, the jury may accept testimony of some witnesses and r......
-
Johnson v. State
...wished to believe or discredit. This Court has long held, as stated in Cochran v. State, 278 So.2d 451 (Miss.1973), citing Wilson v. State, 264 So.2d 828 (Miss.1972): It was the function of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve the issues. Since there was amp......
-
Scott v. State, 1999-KA-01053-SCT.
...words, the credibility of witnesses is not for the reviewing court. (citing Davis v. State, 320 So.2d 789 (Miss. 1975)); Wilson v. State, 264 So.2d 828 (Miss.1972); McLelland v. State, 204 So.2d 158 (Miss.1967). There is no evidence present to support an assertion that the jury in Scott's c......