Anderson v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Anderson v. State

45 So. 359, 91 Miss. 407

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 So. 359 (Anderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. State, 45 So. 359, 91 Miss. 407 (Mich. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Whiteield, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It was fatal error not to have excluded the testimony of Horace Payne and Henry King when the objection was first made. Objection was. duly made, and was overruled, when Horace Payne was under examination. This testimony put the entire details of a previous difficulty between the deceased and the defendant, some two or three months before the killing, before the jury. Without going particularly into these details, it is sufficient to say that they were such as manifestly to prejudice the defendant in the eyes of the jury very seriously — so seriously, indeed, that we cannot say, with any confidence, that the verdict of the jury might not have been different if this testimony had been excluded. It was of the most damaging character, and the error in not excluding it was not cured by subsequently sustaining the motion of the defendant to [410]*410shut it out. We think the case falls on this proposition squarely within the principles announced in the case of Chism v. State, 70 Miss., 742; 12 South., 852. In a case almost wholly circumstantial, the error is all the more marked.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Whiteield, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It was fatal error not to have excluded the testimony of Horace Payne and Henry King when the objection was first made. Objection was. duly made, and was overruled, when Horace Payne was under examination. This testimony put the entire details of a previous difficulty between the deceased and the defendant, some two or three months before the killing, before the jury. Without going particularly into these details, it is sufficient to say that they were such as manifestly to prejudice the defendant in the eyes of the jury very seriously — so seriously, indeed, that we cannot say, with any confidence, that the verdict of the jury might not have been different if this testimony had been excluded. It was of the most damaging character, and the error in not excluding it was not cured by subsequently sustaining the motion of the defendant to [410]*410shut it out. We think the case falls on this proposition squarely within the principles announced in the case of Chism v. State, 70 Miss., 742; 12 South., 852. In a case almost wholly circumstantial, the error is all the more marked.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 So. 359, 91 Miss. 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-miss-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack