Beauchamp v. State

Citations

• 128 Miss. 523
• 91 So. 202

Syllabus

<p>1. Homicide. Question by deceased as to why defendant shot him, and deceased’s statement that he never harmed any one, held admissible as part of dying declaration.</p> <p>While making a dying declaration the deceased, who was killed by the defendant on trial for homicide, asked the person to whom the declaration was being made why the defendant shot him, and stated that he never harmed the defendant, never harmed any one; this question and statement are not the expression of a mere opinion by the deceased, but are, in effect, a statement of fact that the defendant shot the deceased for nothing, and are admissible in evidence as a part of the dying declaration.</p> <p>2. Homicide. Deceased’s statement several months before his death, that he expected to get well, held not admissible to impeach his subsequent dying declaration.</p> <p>A statement by the deceased on a trial for homicide, made while in the hospital and several months before his death, that he expected to get well and return home, is not admissible in evidence to impeach the credibility of a dying declaration, made by the deceased some months thereafter.</p> <p>3. Homicide. Where evidence conflicts as to who ivas aggressor, deceased’s uncommunicated threat against defendant is admissible.</p> <p>Where the evidence on a trial for homicide as to whether the deceased or the defendant was the aggressor is conflicting, a threat by the deceased to use personal violence against, though not communicated to, the defendant, is admissible in evidence.</p> <p>4. Criminal Law. Circumstances under which deceased threatened defendant are competent to explain threat.</p> <p>In a prosecution for homicide, the circumstances under which a threat admissible in evidence was made are competent to explain its meaning and significance.</p> <p>Anderson and Ethridge, JJ., dissenting.</p>