The Pascagoula democrat-star. (Pascagoula, Miss.) 1878-1920, 1880-04-30
Supreme Court Decisions.
From Jackson Comet.
FRANK WALTON, J

Error to the circuit court Of
Wayne county, Hon. J. 5. Hamn,
Judge.
Plaintiff in error wasconvicted Of
murder and sesteued to death.
But one question is presented, viz:
whether the circuit court erred in
refusing to give an instruction to
the jury informing them that in
case they failed to afiix the penal
~ of Imprisonment for life in the
State penitentiary, then it was the
duty OF tha court to impose the
penalty Of death.
j. l.. Morris fer plaintiff in error.
II. e. Catchings, Attorney Gen
eral for the State.
George, q. j.
Held
l. We think the court erred in
refusing the charge.
2. Ii is trIe that when the ques.
ton submitted to a jury is alone
as 10 the guilt or innocence OF the
accused, they have nothing 10 do
with the punishment to be inflicted
in case they render verdict of gull.
ty. Their duty is simply to find the
fact OF guilt or innocence, according
to the evidence before them, aud Il
charge from the court as to the pun.
ishment TO follow conviction could
have no other effect than 10 deter
them from discharsing their duty.
But in this case that was not the
sole question submitted to the jury;
they are invested by law with the
power and charged with the du'y
of determining which of two pun.
ishlnents shall be inflicted.
8. IL was necessary element
in determining whether the inpris-
onment Tor life should he inflicted
for the jury to know whether a milt.
er or greater punishment might,
or must necessarily, be inflicted in
case OF their omission to atiix i'm.
rris0nment.
4. We are not authorized to as.
sumo, MS an answer To this view,
that the jury were well acquainted
with the law condemning the pris-
oner to death, in ease they failed to
ir,,. 49,. ..ip.nptsnt,,t.Aut
3. 1t is true that ~ TO business
transactions and civil conduct,
every mau is presumed to know the
law. This presumption W. know in
most instances to be false, and is
iudulged in only from n necessity
which mainly ARISES from the im.
possibility of determining how
much or how little of law any man
knows. But this presumption Is
exactly the contrary as to Jurors,
So far AS it relates TO principles
OF law applicable to the case be:
fore them, and about which the
court is asked 10 charge them. AS
to these, they are presumed 10 know
nothing, and to derive all their
knowledge from the court.
@. Under the present system ol
selecting Jurors in this State, it is
not incredible. to suppose that one
member at least of some one jury
might be ignorant OF that, or any
othernamcd principle Of law.
Reversed and new trial granted
CHALMERS, j., dissenting,
Held
/. The jury have nothing to dc
with the punishment which the la
allixes to Il conviction Uf guilt, aud
accused has no right to demant
that the jury shall be instructed
with regard to it. The punishment
which the law atfixes to the Grim,
of murder in this State, is death
and that punishment follows b,
operation OF law upon verdict 0
guilty.
2. This punishment the jur,
may, if they elect SO to do, com
mute into Imprisonment for life
When they have been by the cour
instructed as to their perogative II
this regard, they have received al
the information which the accuse,
has .ne right to demand that the,
s1all receive.
3. The charge failed to inform
the jury what action they shoul'
take if they were unanimous il
deeming him guilty but failed t
agree to the punishment. Th
I charge was therefore modified b.
the court so as to announce to then
the rule laid down IN Green V. Tn
State, 55 Miss, 454 to the etfec
that in such event it was their dut.
to return general verdict Of gull
ty. In the modification the state
ment that ii they failed to afli
the punishment of Imprisonment
the law affixed the punishment O
death, was omitted.
| see no reason why it should hay
been omitted, neither can ! see an
legal right that the accused had t
demand that it shall be given.
-
The Cardinal Virtues.