Lee v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Lee v. State

62 So. 360, 105 Miss. 539

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 62 So. 360 (Lee 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

Lee v. State, 62 So. 360, 105 Miss. 539 (Mich. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

From a conviction for the crime of perjury this apr peal is prosecuted. A careful search of the record fails-to discover any evidence tending to corroborate the evidence of the one witness testifying against appellant. It is true that much evidence was given to show that [543]*543the statement of the state’s witness, if made, was false in fact. The state thus succeeded in proving that its witness had lied to appellant, if he told her what she swore he did tell her; but none of this evidence proved, or tended to prove, the falsity of appellant’s testimony at the former trial.

The issue was: Did the state’s witness say what appellant swore he said? The witness testified that he did not, and his testimony was offset by appellant’s testimony; and in order to make out its case the state was bound to produce a witness or corroborating circumstances to aid the evidence of its witness. This was not done.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

From a conviction for the crime of perjury this apr peal is prosecuted. A careful search of the record fails-to discover any evidence tending to corroborate the evidence of the one witness testifying against appellant. It is true that much evidence was given to show that [543]*543the statement of the state’s witness, if made, was false in fact. The state thus succeeded in proving that its witness had lied to appellant, if he told her what she swore he did tell her; but none of this evidence proved, or tended to prove, the falsity of appellant’s testimony at the former trial.

The issue was: Did the state’s witness say what appellant swore he said? The witness testified that he did not, and his testimony was offset by appellant’s testimony; and in order to make out its case the state was bound to produce a witness or corroborating circumstances to aid the evidence of its witness. This was not done.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 So. 360, 105 Miss. 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-miss-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack