State v. Wiley

76 Miss. 282
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 76 Miss. 282 (State v. Wiley) 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
State v. Wiley, 76 Miss. 282 (Mich. 1898).

Opinion

Whitfield, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court erred in striking out the words set out as having been stricken from the instruction for the state. Says the court [283]*283in Gaines v. State, 40 Am. Rep., 64, 65, through'the learned Judge Cooper: “It is not absolutely necessary that the name of the deity should be used ”—That is, to constitute profanity— “any words importing an imprecation of divine vengeance, or implying divine condemnation, so used as to constitute a public nuisance, would suffice.” Citing cases. See, to the same effect, 2 Bish. New Grim, Law, sec. 79 (1), and 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (1st ed.), p. 424, the note where the authorities are collated. The very words here stricken out were held to constitute profanity in Holcomb v. Cornish, 8 Conn., 375.

The court, therefore, erred in its holding as to what constituted profanity.

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

Related

Brendle v. City of Houston
759 So. 2d 1274 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2000)
Duncan v. United States
48 F.2d 128 (Ninth Circuit, 1931)
Orf v. State
113 So. 202 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1927)
Sanford v. State
44 So. 801 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 Miss. 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wiley-miss-1898.