Bedwell v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Bedwell v. State

144 So. 466, 165 Miss. 487, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 283

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1932

DocketNo. 30223.

StatusPublished

This text of 144 So. 466 (Bedwell 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

Bedwell v. State, 144 So. 466, 165 Miss. 487, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 283 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, O. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant and his wife, Lucy, were indicted and tried together on an indictment for murder. The jury found the appellant guilty of manslaughter, and returned a verdict of not guilty as to his wife.

*488 Most of the assignments of error present no error in fact; and none of them present any error that would justify reversal. Only one of these assignments will be here specifically noticed. The jury reported a verdict of not guilty as to Lucy, and a failure to agree on a ver dict-as to the appellant. The court thereupon directed the jury to return to their room for further consideration of the case as to the appellant; and they thereafter reported a verdict of guilty as to him. The return of the jury to their room under the order of the court, for . further consideration of the case, is complained of for the reason that “they (the jury) could have easily assumed that they were bound to return a verdict of guilty or innocent” — in other words, that the jury could have easily assumed that they were bound' to return a verdict one way or the other, and could not adhere to their report that they were unable to agree on a verdict as to the appellant.

Nothing. that here occurred would have warranted such an assumption by the jury; and it does not appear that they did so assume, nor does it appear — in fact, no contention thereof is made — that the jury were kept together for such a length of time as would, or may, have resulted in their being coerced into returning a verdict.

Affirmed.

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

Smith, O. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant and his wife, Lucy, were indicted and tried together on an indictment for murder. The jury found the appellant guilty of manslaughter, and returned a verdict of not guilty as to his wife.

*488 Most of the assignments of error present no error in fact; and none of them present any error that would justify reversal. Only one of these assignments will be here specifically noticed. The jury reported a verdict of not guilty as to Lucy, and a failure to agree on a ver dict-as to the appellant. The court thereupon directed the jury to return to their room for further consideration of the case as to the appellant; and they thereafter reported a verdict of guilty as to him. The return of the jury to their room under the order of the court, for . further consideration of the case, is complained of for the reason that “they (the jury) could have easily assumed that they were bound to return a verdict of guilty or innocent” — in other words, that the jury could have easily assumed that they were bound' to return a verdict one way or the other, and could not adhere to their report that they were unable to agree on a verdict as to the appellant.

Nothing. that here occurred would have warranted such an assumption by the jury; and it does not appear that they did so assume, nor does it appear — in fact, no contention thereof is made — that the jury were kept together for such a length of time as would, or may, have resulted in their being coerced into returning a verdict.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 So. 466, 165 Miss. 487, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bedwell-v-state-miss-1932.