Cunningham v. State

48 So. 297, 94 Miss. 228
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1908·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Fletcher, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We do not think the proof as to separation of the juror Grady from his fellows is sufficient to reverse this case. It was said in Skales v. State, 64 Miss. 645, 1 South. 843, 60 Am. Rep. [230]*23070, that it is not enough for the defendant to show that possibly some person might have been with the juror and communicated with him. In the case at bar it is highly improbable that the juror saw anybody during the period of his enforced withdrawal from the body of the jury.

Though we are earnestly urged to reverse the case on the facts, after a careful consideration of the evidence, we do not feel justified in disturbing the verdict of the jury.

Affirmed.

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

Cunningham v. State, 48 So. 297, 94 Miss. 228 (Mich. 1908).

48 So. 297 (Cunningham v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lattimore v. State
958 So. 2d 192 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2007)
Terry Lee Lattimore v. State of Mississippi
Mississippi Supreme Court, 2002
Glass v. State
278 So. 2d 384 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1973)
Wilson v. State
248 So. 2d 802 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1971)
Grimsley v. State
54 So. 2d 277 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1951)
Clark v. State
48 So. 2d 127 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1950)
Queen v. State
120 So. 838 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1929)
Sullivan v. State
115 So. 552 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)