Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 07 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | 29875 |
| Citation | 139 So. 869,162 Miss. 494 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. STATE |
(In Banc.)
1 HOMICIDE.
Escaped convict sentenced for felony may be arrested without a warrant.
2 EXTRADITION.
No demand for extradition of escaped convict sentenced for felony is necessary, where after apprehension he accompanied officers back to state whence he fled.
3. CRIMINAL LAW.
Since a mittimus as authority for imprisonment is required Imprisonment gives rise to presumption that it was lawful.
4 HOMICIDE.
Killing with deadly weapon gives rise to presumption that it was malicious and therefore "murder."
5. HOMICIDE.
To reduce killing with deadly weapon from murder to manslaughter, evidence showing justification or mitigation is essential.
6. HOMICIDE.
Evidence held to sustain verdict that escaped convict sentenced for felony and in custody of officer was guilty of murdering him.
7. CRIMINAL LAW.
Refusal of instruction that accused was guilty of manslaughter if he obtained possession of pistol without deliberation as to killing and shot was fired in struggle to escape held proper, in view of other instructions.
APPEAL from circuit court of Hinds county HON. W. H. POTTER, Judge.
Charlie Wright was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
E. B. Todd, of Jackson, for appellant.
An illegal arrest in Louisiana is not rendered lawful by bringing the defendant across the state line.
It is contended for and on behalf of the defendant that his arrest in Louisiana, as aforesaid, was unlawful, and that the subsequent handling of the prisoner was unlawful, and that even though assuming that the defendant killed the deceased in an attempt to escape he could not be guilty of murder according to the ruling of this Court in Williams v. State, 127 Miss. 851, 90 So. 705; Burnett v. Flournoy, 67 So. 929; Covington v. Hughes, 102 So. 824.
The lower court erred in refusing the defendant the following instruction: "The court instructs the jury for the defendant that if you believe from the evidence in this case that the defendant did, on the spur of the moment, and without deliberation as to killing the deceased, secure possession of the pistol and in the struggle to escape fired the fatal shot, then the defendant is guilty of manslaughter and not murder.
Herbert Nunnery, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
Because the record fails to show whether or not arresting officers were armed with the proper papers with a demand from the Governor of Mississippi to Louisiana for the arrest and return of defendant to Mississippi, the learned counsel for appellant seems to think that presumption is in favor of the defendant and the arrest, if made without such papers, was an illegal one. We must disagree and state to the court that we feel that appellants contention in this behalf is unfounded, especially where the record fails to disclose authority for the arrest. In such event the presumption is that the arrest was legal.
The brief vaguely indicates that appellant was justified in taking these unpleasant actions, because he thought he was being illegally held. Of course, this contention is not well founded, even if defendant was being illegally held. This could not be treated as a justification for the extreme action taken by him. His remedy was in the courts of law and not by taking the situation in his own hands.
Talbert v. State, 71 Miss. 189; Albert Brown v. State, 98 Miss. 786.
It is a question for the jury on the trial under an indictment for murder.
If appellant had never made the statements that were made in the presence of several witnesses, we feel that it would have made no material difference in this case.
Charlie Wright, who was indicted for the murder of L. N. Ratliff, was tried therefor before a jury, convicted, and sentenced to be hung; and from that decision this appeal was taken.
Wright killed Ratliff, a deputy sheriff, in the city of Jackson, while being brought from Liberty, in Amite county, as a prisoner; the former being an escaped convict. Mr. Hazlewood, another officer, was with Ratliff and the appellant in the car, Hazlewood being the driver. By some means Hazlewood's pistol slipped from his holster to the floor of the car. The appellant, who was handcuffed, on the rear seat with Ratliff, picked the pistol up, whereupon Ratliff grabbed him, and, in the scuffle over the pistol, it was fired, severely wounding Ratliff, from which wounds lie died about nine days later. As the negro grabbed the pistol, Ratliff called to Hazlewood to help him, and about the time he called the shot was fired. Hazlewood turned the steering wheel loose, and, while he and Ratliff were trying to take the pistol from the appellant, who had it by the stock or handle, it was fired a time or two during the scuffle. In the scuffle Mr. Ratliff's pistol fell to the floor of the car, or at least the appellant secured possession of it. He then had a pistol in each hand, and a shot from one of them wounded Mr. Hazlewood in the finger. While this was going on, the car was still running, and ran into some posts and a tree; whereupon two persons nearby ran up, and, being unable to open the door of the car, broke it; one of the parties, laying a knife on appellant's neck, ordered him to desist or he would cut his head off. The appellant obeyed, and the pistols were taken from him. Mr. Ratliff, desperately wounded, was taken to the hospital, and some policemen who had arrived on the scene, in company with Hazlewood, took the appellant to the city jail. One of the policemen asked the appellant who shot Ratliff, who stated, "I did," and, on being asked why, replied that he did what any convict would do to get away--that they would all kill you. He also stated that he was an escaped convict, from the Mississippi penitentiary, being sentence thereto for manslaughter.
The state's evidence does not develop how the officers came to be in possession of the appellant; merely shows that they were bringing him from jail in Amite county to Hinds county to return him to the penitentiary. Mr. Hazlewood testified that as they came into Jackson on highway No. 51, on to South street; that they did not know where the new jail was situated, and, on asking which way to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicolaou v. State
...725 (1949); Jones v. State, 178 Miss. 636, 174 So. 546 (1937); Talbert v. State, 172 Miss. 243, 159 So. 549 (1935); Wright v. State, 162 Miss. 494, 139 So. 869 (1932); Bennett v. State, 152 Miss. 728, 120 So. 837 (1929); Holmes v. State, 151 Miss. 702, 118 So. 431 (1928); Carter v. State, 1......
-
Blanks v. State
...Shields v. State, 244 Miss. 543, 144 So.2d 786 (1962); Hughes v. State, 207 Miss. 594, 42 So.2d 805 (1949); Wright v. State, 162 Miss. 494, 139 So. 869 (1932); Hawthorne v. State, 58 Miss. 778 This presumption has no application where there are eyewitnesses to the slaying other than the acc......
-
People v. Neal
...infer that a defendant was lawfully imprisoned from evidence that he was incarcerated in a state prison. 3 Cf. Wright v. Mississippi, 162 Miss. 494, 499-500, 139 So. 869 (1932). This Court apparently recognized the reasonableness of this inference in People v. Williams, supra. In Williams, ......
- Gipson v. State