Prewitt v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Prewitt v. State

65 Miss. 437

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 Miss. 437 (Prewitt 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

Prewitt v. State, 65 Miss. 437 (Mich. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Arnold, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

If appellant had been tried and convicted of a felony, instead of a misdemeanor, the exposure of the jury of which he complains would be a serious obstacle against affirming the judgment against him.

Courts in this state have no authority to allow juries engaged in the trial of persons charged with felony to separate and disperse before verdict; but the law is different in regard to misdemeanors. As to the latter, it is within the discretion of the presiding judge, both under the English and the American practice, to permit the jury to separate and disperse as in civil cases, before verdict, under instructions from him, that they shall not converse with any person about the case, or suffer such conversation in their presence, or read newspaper reports or comments in regard to it, and the like. 1 Bish. Cr. Pro., sec. 996; 3 Whart. Cr. L., secs. 3166, a 3101; Thompson and Mer. on Juries, sec. 317..

We find nothing in the record to vitiate the verdict. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Arnold, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

If appellant had been tried and convicted of a felony, instead of a misdemeanor, the exposure of the jury of which he complains would be a serious obstacle against affirming the judgment against him.

Courts in this state have no authority to allow juries engaged in the trial of persons charged with felony to separate and disperse before verdict; but the law is different in regard to misdemeanors. As to the latter, it is within the discretion of the presiding judge, both under the English and the American practice, to permit the jury to separate and disperse as in civil cases, before verdict, under instructions from him, that they shall not converse with any person about the case, or suffer such conversation in their presence, or read newspaper reports or comments in regard to it, and the like. 1 Bish. Cr. Pro., sec. 996; 3 Whart. Cr. L., secs. 3166, a 3101; Thompson and Mer. on Juries, sec. 317..

We find nothing in the record to vitiate the verdict. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Miss. 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prewitt-v-state-miss-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack