Overstreet v. State

1 Morr. St. Cas. 112, 3 Howard 328
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Morr. St. Cas. 112 (Overstreet 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
Overstreet v. State, 1 Morr. St. Cas. 112, 3 Howard 328 (Mich. 1872).

Opinion

Trotter, J.:

The plaintiff in error was indicted in the circuit court of Holmes county, for the offense of fornication. On the trial the attorney for the state offered, in support of the prosecution, testimony that it was the general reputation in the neighborhood of the defendant’s residence, that the defendant and Sarah Hamilton did live together in a state of fornication as charged in the indictment. This proof was objected to, but admitted by the court to go to the jury. The error assigned is, the admission of this testimony. The charge in the indictment is of a specific offense, and must be proved as all other offenses are established; that is, by proof pointed out by law. It is a general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible; and the cases which have been made exceptions to this rule, have proceeded upon the [114]*114ground of necessity alone. This is not a case which falls within any of the reasons of the exceptions. And besides, in this case, the witness states the strongest possible reason excluding it, which is, that he believed the neighbors who had spoken of the cohabitation knew nothing about it.

Let the judgment be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

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

Related

State v. Sisk
46 So. 2d 191 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Morr. St. Cas. 112, 3 Howard 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overstreet-v-state-miss-1872.