Herrington v. State

53 So. 783, 98 Miss. 410
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 53 So. 783 (Herrington 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
Herrington v. State, 53 So. 783, 98 Miss. 410 (Mich. 1910).

Opinion

Smith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was indicted and convicted in the court below for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. The principal witness for the state, and the one upon whose testimony the indictment was found, was one Jordan Turner. The name of this witness was given to the district attorney by. the sheriff of the county, who claims to .have seen the witness with a bottle of liquor shortly after the alleged purchase thereof. When this witness appeared before the grand jury, neither the foreman thereof nor the district attorney were able to elicit from him any information relative to the alleged sale, although he was threatened with imprisonment. Thereupon the sheriff was sent for. When he came into the grand jury room, he reminded the witness of what he had seen, remained in the room during the remainder of the examination of the witness, and conducted a part of it himself. The result of this was that testimony was obtained from the witness upon which the indictment was found. A plea in abatement was filed setting up these facts. This plea seems to have been treated as a motion to quash, and was by the court overruled.

It is improper for a witness before the grand jury to be examined by any one other than members of the grand jury and the district attorney. It is also improper for any outsider to take any part in the deliberations of [417]*417the grand jury. Durr v. State, 53 Miss. 425; Wilson v. State, 70 Miss. 595, 13 South. 225, 35 Am. St. Rep. 664; Welch v. State, 68 Miss. 341, 8 South. 673. Without the •assistance of the sheriff, this evidence would not have been obtained, and the indictment could not have been .found.

The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed, the indictment quashed, and the defendant held to await the action of another grand jury.

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

Related

State v. Bowman
423 N.E.2d 605 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1981)
State v. Frazier
252 S.E.2d 39 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1979)
Moseley v. State
510 S.W.2d 298 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1974)
State v. Matthews
218 So. 2d 743 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1969)
Collier v. State
61 So. 689 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 So. 783, 98 Miss. 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrington-v-state-miss-1910.