Title: Wallace v. State
Citation: 183 So. 2d 525, 254 Miss. 944
Docket Number: 43838
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: February 28, 1966

254 Miss. 944 (1966) 183 So. 2d 525 WALLACE v. STATE No. 43838. Supreme Court of Mississippi. February 28, 1966. Fountain D. Dawson, Greenville, for appellant. *946 R. Hugo Newcomb, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. PATTERSON, J. Defendant was indicted for murder in Washington County. He was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to the state penitentiary for a period of three years. He appeals to this Court, assigning as error the following: (1) The court erred in allowing Carrie Wallace to testify over the objections of the defendant on the grounds that she was the wife of the defendant. (2) The court erred in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict when the prosecution rested its case, and in denying a directed verdict after both the State and defense rested. *947 (3) The court erred in failing to give full credit to the defendant's version of the homicide, there being no other eye witness thereto. (4) The verdict of the jury is contrary to and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and the evidence is insufficient to convict. On the trial of the cause the defendant's wife, the only eye witness to the fatal affray other than the defend, was permitted to testify against him. Her testimony was of utmost importance to the State's case and thus equally damaging to the defendant. The defendant's objections were to no avail and this testimony was considered by the jury. We are of the opinion that this was reversible error. The provisions of Mississippi Code Annotated section 1689 (1956) are as follows: (Hn 1) It is apparent from this section that the defendant's wife could not testify against him without the consent of both unless the controversy was between them, which it was not. In fact, we have held that the mere offering of a wife to testify against her husband is *948 reversible error. In Outlaw v. State, 208 Miss. 13, 20, 43 So. 2d 661, 664 (1949) we held: See also Smith v. State, 193 Miss. 474, 10 So. 2d 352 (1942); Davis v. State, 157 Miss. 669, 128 So. 885 (1930); Pearson v. State, 97 Miss. 841, 53 So. 689 (1910); Finklea v. State, 94 Miss. 777, 48 So. 1 (1909); and Garner v. State, 76 Miss. 515, 25 So. 363 (1898). This prohibition of testimony, unless it is consented to by both husband and wife, is so well established in our jurisprudence that it needs no further comment. (Hn 2) The defendant, through the circuit clerk of the county, introduced into evidence the certificate of marriage between Carrie Nelson, the witness, and himself on March 3, 1961. This certificate raises a strong presumption that the marriage was in fact valid. In Fleming v. Fleming, 213 Miss. 74, 84, 56 So. 2d 35, 38, 39 (1952) we held: And in Hill v. United Timber &amp; Lbr. Co., 68 So. 2d 420, 424 (Miss. 1953) we held: See also Bunkley &amp; Morse's Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi § 1.02(6) at page 21 (1957) and § 1.02(6) of Supplement at page 7 (1964). *950 (Hn 3) The burden of proof was upon the State, who attacked the validity of the marriage, to show its invalidity by clear and certain testimony. This it failed to do, the only evidence in this regard being elicited from the defendant's wife who testified that she was first married to Albert Nelson in 1938 and that they were separated in 1945. She further testified that she had never gotten a divorce from Nelson and that she was not aware as to whether or not he had obtained a divorce from her, though he did write concerning a divorce in 1948, but that she had never been served with notice of any divorce proceeding by Nelson. The testimony indicates that Nelson died in 1964 without communicating with the witness subsequent to 1948. As heretofore stated, the witness and the defendant were married in 1961 and she considers him to be her husband, as in her testimony she referred to him as "Yes, sir. That's my husband," and that by referring to "James" she meant "James Wallace my husband." (Hn 4) We have considered this evidence in the light of the authorities which require clear and certain testimony to overcome the presumption of validity which arose with the second ceremonial marriage and are of the opinion that the State failed to overcome this presumption. (Hn 5) Neither did the defendant waive the benefit of his objection by cross-examination on the same subject. 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 833 (12th Ed. 1955) and McCormick v. State, 135 Tenn. 218, 186 S.W. 95 (1916). We hold that the trial court committed reversible error in permitting the State to introduce the defendant's wife as a witness against him. The next assignments of error address themselves to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict and to the testimony of the defendant which, it is contended, is without contradiction in the absence of the wife's testimony and therefore must be accepted as a basis for reversal. We have considered these assignments and are of the *951 opinion that they are not well taken, and since we are of the opinion that a new trial must be had, we with-hold comment on this evidence. For the reasons heretofore ascribed we are of the opinion the defendant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial as contemplated by our laws and that the cause must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Reversed and remanded. Gillespie, P.J., and Brady, Smith, and Robertson, JJ., concur.