Shanks v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Shanks v. State

110 So. 666, 145 Miss. 328, 1926 Miss. LEXIS 29

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1926

DocketNo. 25538.

StatusPublished

This text of 110 So. 666 (Shanks 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

Shanks v. State, 110 So. 666, 145 Miss. 328, 1926 Miss. LEXIS 29 (Mich. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

HoldeN, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

John Shanks appeals from a conviction of manslaughter and a sentence for a term of ten years in the penitentiary.

The appellant shot and killed his wife, and contended at the trial that the shooting was accidental. The testi *330 mony offered by Mm sustained tMs theory, but the physical facts and circumstances, as well as the dying declaration of the deceased, tended to show that the shooting’ was not accidental, but was intentionally done. This conflict in the testimony presented a question of fact for the decision of the jury, and their verdict of guilt is amply supported by the evidence in the case; consequently, we see no reason for a reversal on that ground.

The other reasons urged for reversal by the appellant have been carefully considered by us, and we see no merit in any of them. Therefore the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HoldeN, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

John Shanks appeals from a conviction of manslaughter and a sentence for a term of ten years in the penitentiary.

The appellant shot and killed his wife, and contended at the trial that the shooting was accidental. The testi *330 mony offered by Mm sustained tMs theory, but the physical facts and circumstances, as well as the dying declaration of the deceased, tended to show that the shooting’ was not accidental, but was intentionally done. This conflict in the testimony presented a question of fact for the decision of the jury, and their verdict of guilt is amply supported by the evidence in the case; consequently, we see no reason for a reversal on that ground.

The other reasons urged for reversal by the appellant have been carefully considered by us, and we see no merit in any of them. Therefore the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 666, 145 Miss. 328, 1926 Miss. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shanks-v-state-miss-1926.