Wood v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Wood v. State

165 So. 123, 174 Miss. 499, 1936 Miss. LEXIS 193

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 1936

DocketNo. 31896.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 So. 123 (Wood 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

Wood v. State, 165 So. 123, 174 Miss. 499, 1936 Miss. LEXIS 193 (Mich. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Among the instructions given at the request of the state was one informing the jury that they were the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and this instruction concluded as follows: “And if you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that any witness in this case has wilfully sworn falsely to any material matter in this case, yon may reject the entire testimony of such witness, or you may reject a part and accept a part of the testimony of such witness.” The quoted portion of that instruction has so often been condemned by this court that we were impelled to announce in McClure v. State, 157 Miss. 800, 128 So. 764, that a verdict and judgment would be reversed for that error alone, and this was repeated in Farley, Inc., v. Smith, 158 Miss. 404, 130 So. 478.

It was error, also, to admit the testimony of Gilliland in respect to the disconnected incident about hunting without a privilege license, and it was error to admit the rebuttal testimony of Patridge in regard to a statement made to him by the defense witness, Stella May Wood, because the statement attributed to her was in such form *502 that it partook more of' the nature of an opinion than an averment of fact.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Among the instructions given at the request of the state was one informing the jury that they were the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and this instruction concluded as follows: “And if you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that any witness in this case has wilfully sworn falsely to any material matter in this case, yon may reject the entire testimony of such witness, or you may reject a part and accept a part of the testimony of such witness.” The quoted portion of that instruction has so often been condemned by this court that we were impelled to announce in McClure v. State, 157 Miss. 800, 128 So. 764, that a verdict and judgment would be reversed for that error alone, and this was repeated in Farley, Inc., v. Smith, 158 Miss. 404, 130 So. 478.

It was error, also, to admit the testimony of Gilliland in respect to the disconnected incident about hunting without a privilege license, and it was error to admit the rebuttal testimony of Patridge in regard to a statement made to him by the defense witness, Stella May Wood, because the statement attributed to her was in such form *502 that it partook more of' the nature of an opinion than an averment of fact.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 123, 174 Miss. 499, 1936 Miss. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-state-miss-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack