Woods v. State

• Decision Date: 18 March 1907
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ISAAC WOODS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

43 So. 433

90 Miss. 245

ISAAC WOODS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 18, 1907

March 1907

FROM the circuit court of Lee county, HON. EUGENE O. SYKES, Judge

Woods the appellant, a negro, was indicted and tried for assault and battery with intent to kill and murder another negro Dade Edwards; was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for one year, and appealed to the supreme court.

The indictment charged appellant with feloniously assaulting Edwards with a gun, striking and wounding him with it with intent to murder him. Pending a quarrel between the parties Edwards was struck upon the head with a shotgun by appellant with such force as to knock him senseless and discharge and unbreech the gun. The testimony was conflicting as to which was the aggressor; according to some of it, the appellant was without excuse for the blow, but according to the testimony of himself and his wife, he acted in self-defense.

During the trial, before the state had closed its case, one Sample a white man, was introduced as a witness by the state and allowed to testify touching the good character of Edwards in the community, although no attack had been made upon it.

The first instruction for the state, referred to in the opinion, was as follows:

"(1) The court charges the jury for the state that if they believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant, Isaac Woods, struck the witness, Dade Edwards, over the head with a gun which was a deadly weapon, intending to kill said Dade Edwards, and not in necessary self- defense, at a time when defendant was in no immediate danger of loss of his life, or of great bodily harm, real or apparent, at the hands of Edwards, then the jury will find the defendant guilty as charged."

A second instruction for the state charged the jury that the law presumes malice from the unlawful and deliberate use of a deadly weapon.

Reversed and remanded.

George H. Hill, for appellant.

The court below erred in granting the first instruction asked by the state. This instruction in effect charged the jury to find the appellant guilty as charged if the jury should believe beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intended merely to kill the assaulted party. There is a great difference between an intent to kill and an intent to murder. To constitute guilt on appellant's part his acts must have been characterized by an intent to murder. Thames v. State, 82 Miss. 667, 35 So. 171. The granting of this instruction was accordingly reversible error.

The testimony was to the effect that the witness, Edwards, went to appellant's house, and there cursed and abused appellant; that when appellant remonstrated, Edwards dismounted from his wagon, and after tying his horses, advanced on appellant with a large knife. It is clearly evident that the appellant was acting in self-defense when he struck Edwards with the gun barrel.

Under the circumstances it was incumbent for the state to prove, not only that appellant struck with intent to kill Edwards, but with malice aforethought, and that the single-barrelled gun in appellant's hands was a deadly weapon; all of which the state failed to prove.

To sustain a conviction in a case of this...