Cunningham v. State
42 So. 172, 89 Miss. 356
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cunningham v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 94 Miss. 228 →
Opinion
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Tbe gist of tbe defense was malice, and threats by Stacy, tbe man assaulted, to throw light on tbe question as to who was tbe aggressor. To rebut this tbe state recalled Stacy to show that defendant bad spent four nights with him just before this shooting and was well cared for. Tbe court then refused to permit tbe defendant to introduce testimony to show tbat this was not true. This we think was error-
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cunningham v. State, 42 So. 172, 89 Miss. 356 (Mich. 1906).
42 So. 172 (Cunningham v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.