Case ID: miss_190/html/0521-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Koberds, J., Griffith, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McCormick v. State.
    (In Banc.
    March 24, 1941.
    [1 So. (2d) 234.
    No. 34263.]
    M. S. McNeil, of Hazlehurst, and Reeves & Leggett, of McComb, for appellant.
    
      W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for appellee.
   Koberds, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It was error to permit Dr. Hewitt to testify as a medical expert that in his opinion the prosecutrix did not voluntarily consent to the act of intercourse, but the verdict of the jury is so manifestly correct, we think the error was harmless. We find no reversible error in the record.

Affirmed.

Specially Concurring Opinion.

Griffith, J.,

delivered a specially concurring opinion.

When the precise facts testified to by Dr. Hewitt as facts are kept well in mind, and his testimony is considered throughout in the precise connection in which adduced, I am of the opinion that there was no error in the admission of that part to which the majority in its opinion has taken exception, and that there was not only no reversible error in the record but no error at all.

McGehee, J., concurs in the foregoing statement.