State v. Wiley
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.
Opinion
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
76 Miss. 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wiley-miss-1898.