Newsome v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Newsome v. State

20 So. 2d 708, 197 Miss. 797, 1945 Miss. LEXIS 312

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 12, 1945

DocketNo. 35761.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 20 So. 2d 708 (Newsome 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

Newsome v. State, 20 So. 2d 708, 197 Miss. 797, 1945 Miss. LEXIS 312 (Mich. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

*801 Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. He claims to have killed the deceased in self-defense, and introduced evidence to that effect. Only two of his assignments of error are of sufficient substance to require an answer thereto.'

(1) The Court refused to permit him to testify that unnamed persons told him that the deceased came to a house wherein they were and from which the appellant had just left and said to them, “I am going to kill the son of a bitch,” meaning the appellant. None of these persons testified as to the actual making of this threat. It will not be necessary for us to decide whether this evi- *802 deuce was competent for the reason that had it been received it would have been ’ merely cumulative, for numerous similar threats against the appellant by the deceased were introduced in evidence.

(2) While testifying in his own behalf the appellant, in order to ‘‘ show the desperate and dangerous character of the deceased,” offered but was not permitted to say that the deceased had told him that he had killed three men. ' In a prosecution for homicide the desperate and dangerous character of the person killed, when otherwise competent, can not be proven by antecedent acts of violence committed by him, McCoy v. State, 91 Miss. 257, 44 So. 814, although the defendant has knowledge thereof, King v. State, 65 Miss. 576, 5 So. 97, 7 Am. St. Rep. 681.

Affirmed.

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

*801 Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. He claims to have killed the deceased in self-defense, and introduced evidence to that effect. Only two of his assignments of error are of sufficient substance to require an answer thereto.'

(1) The Court refused to permit him to testify that unnamed persons told him that the deceased came to a house wherein they were and from which the appellant had just left and said to them, “I am going to kill the son of a bitch,” meaning the appellant. None of these persons testified as to the actual making of this threat. It will not be necessary for us to decide whether this evi- *802 deuce was competent for the reason that had it been received it would have been ’ merely cumulative, for numerous similar threats against the appellant by the deceased were introduced in evidence.

(2) While testifying in his own behalf the appellant, in order to ‘‘ show the desperate and dangerous character of the deceased,” offered but was not permitted to say that the deceased had told him that he had killed three men. ' In a prosecution for homicide the desperate and dangerous character of the person killed, when otherwise competent, can not be proven by antecedent acts of violence committed by him, McCoy v. State, 91 Miss. 257, 44 So. 814, although the defendant has knowledge thereof, King v. State, 65 Miss. 576, 5 So. 97, 7 Am. St. Rep. 681.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 So. 2d 708, 197 Miss. 797, 1945 Miss. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newsome-v-state-miss-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack