Ivey v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Ivey v. State

120 So. 449, 153 Miss. 41, 1929 Miss. LEXIS 12

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1929

DocketNo. 27661.

StatusPublished

This text of 120 So. 449 (Ivey 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

Ivey v. State, 120 So. 449, 153 Miss. 41, 1929 Miss. LEXIS 12 (Mich. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, C. J.

This is an appeal from a conviction for having intoxicating- liquor in possession. Two of the assignments of error are based on the appellant’s claim (1) that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution under section 1792, Code of 1906 (section 2260, Hemingway’s 1927 Code); and’ (2) that the venue was not proven.

The evidence on which the appellant was convicted was that, on the trial of one Bolton in a justice of the peace court for having intoxicating liquor in his possession, the appellant was sworn as a witness in behalf of Bolton, and testified that the liquor there in question was his (the appellant’s). This state of facts does not bring the appellant’s testimony on the trial of Bolton within the provisions of the statute for the reason that the immunity there granted is to a witness introduced by, and compelled to testify at the instance of, the state, and not of a defendant. Turnage v. State, 134 Miss. 431, 99 So. 9.

It is true that the admission of the appellant in the Bolton case was not that he had liquor in possession within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace before whom the case now under consideration originated, but that fact was proven by other witnesses.

Affirmed.

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

Smith, C. J.

This is an appeal from a conviction for having intoxicating- liquor in possession. Two of the assignments of error are based on the appellant’s claim (1) that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution under section 1792, Code of 1906 (section 2260, Hemingway’s 1927 Code); and’ (2) that the venue was not proven.

The evidence on which the appellant was convicted was that, on the trial of one Bolton in a justice of the peace court for having intoxicating liquor in his possession, the appellant was sworn as a witness in behalf of Bolton, and testified that the liquor there in question was his (the appellant’s). This state of facts does not bring the appellant’s testimony on the trial of Bolton within the provisions of the statute for the reason that the immunity there granted is to a witness introduced by, and compelled to testify at the instance of, the state, and not of a defendant. Turnage v. State, 134 Miss. 431, 99 So. 9.

It is true that the admission of the appellant in the Bolton case was not that he had liquor in possession within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace before whom the case now under consideration originated, but that fact was proven by other witnesses.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 449, 153 Miss. 41, 1929 Miss. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivey-v-state-miss-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack