The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-02-24
RENE COURT DECISION S.
-ted for The Clarion by L. Brame. Attor-
ney-at-LaW, Jackson, Miss.
OCTOBER TERM, 1880.

No. S5n.
ppeaI from the Circuit Court of DeSoto
4nty, Hon. Samuel Powell, Judge.
ppeIlan. was convicted of murder and
enced to be hung.
he extracts given below from the opin-
Of the Supreme Court will indicate
ciently the main points involved in this
RICE, J.
/. 1t Is urged that the
ID erred in allowing the State to intro
in evidence, and in rebuttal of the
ndaut'5 evidence, the affidavit made by
Rccu-ed for continuance and the YER
additlou he made to 1t in response TO
ti5us prOpounded by the court. We
lD objection to this evidence. If, as Is
#ended. this affidavit aud statement were
Mradictory 70 the evidence introduced
be accused % establish the abb, it was
Scr and competent evidence to be con-
bel by the jury.
was it an objection TO the verbal 5 tate
that il was elected by questions pro-
hdel by the court, for the affidavit was
face insufficient, and the object of the
b ~ pIDpJuuding the questions was TO
Ill the prisoner an opportunity to per feet
Affidavit. and not 10 eXtOrt confess ions
id him. We are bound to presume that
was nothing in the manner of the
be, lis there WAS certainly nothing In
language used by him in propoundlng
Questions to the accused, which could
he least, cause his answers to be other
III than voluntary.
70, however, wish to be understood as
8uing that II the questions were pro-
ebded otherwise than for the legitimate
|4Ct Of aiding the prisoner in his appIlca>
then before the court, his answers should
ID boon excluded.
n The 9th charge for the State was inn
per. While it Is true as matter of
II that the defence o + an diibj is one that
s easily fabricated and is often attempted
eontrivance, subordination and perjury"
fas stated to the jury in the charge, it
& 30 true that il is a perfectly legal and fair
Ense when properly made out; and some
De is the only means of escape left to an
|bcent person.
Dc court, whilst properly charging the
Il to weigh the evidence of the abb with
lion and rigid scrutiny, ought not to
81 suggested TO the jury the fact contain
I'd the quotation above made-that it was
ID the result of continuance and perjury /
n thOut at the same time informing them /
II when fully and satisfactorily made out, /
ls a perfectly good and legal defense. /
n effect of the charge as it stood was to
indice the jury against that kind of de
h. and it therefore tended to induce |
% to give less credit to the evidence sets |
4 it up than TO other evidence of equal
aiblity.
The Sth charge asked by the prisoner
+ refused by the court is in these words |
s court instructs the jury that if there is
stability of the innocence of the defend |
I'd. Nelms, then a reasonable doubt of
.guilt of the deiendent exists, aud the /
i must find verdict of not guilty"
bis charge ought to have been given. |
keniRg b. The Stute, 80 Miss. 656 Mir0n I
D. State, % Miss. 525.
In the 18th charge given for the State
eourt instructed the jury that certain cir
astauces stated in it were evidence of
Defendants guilt" In reference to this |
re the court says: Instructions should /
arIwn up ia language which in its ordi /
y Specification expresses to the mind the /
! intended to be conveyed by the court. /
'pIs are not ttl educated III tIllS CtdJe /
there is some danger that jury might /
TO draw the distinction between "evi- /
be- and proof" it would have been /
Ter, therefore, ifin this charge the court |
told the jury that the circumstances
bed in it were evidence which tended to /
y the prisoners guilt" instead of simply /
they were evidence of his guilt.
Reversed Reir trial granted
4 Brown and NJ. Green for appellant. |
c. Catchings, Attorney-General, contra.
70 be reported.
orE-Iu this case the appellant being /
pie TO employ counsel to prosecute his /
|eal, he was represented by Messrs. Brown Z
Green under appointment of the court.