Carothers v. State

Citations

• 121 Miss. 762
• 82 So. 809

Syllabus

<p>1. Burglary. Not necessary for indictment that intent to commit larceny was burglarious.</p> <p>An indictment for burglary charging that defendant did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously and burglariously break and enter a certain dwelling was sufficient; it was not necessary to further use the word “burglarious” in charging an intent to commit larceny; the word having reference to the manner of entry and characterizing the breaking and entry as having been done in the manner of a burglar.</p> <p>2. Cbiminal Law. Confessions made to an officer without caution or warning admissible in evidence.</p> <p>Confession of an accused made to an officer having him in custody were not incompetent because the officer failed to caution the prisoner that his statement might be used against him, there being no statute requiring such caution or warning.</p> <p>3. Ceiminai Law. Erroneous statement of lato in argument not prejudicial not included in instructions.</p> <p>A statement by a prosecuting attorney in his closing argument in a prosecution for burglary that “possession of recent stolen goods is prima-facie evidence of guilt, and that I could obtain an instruction from the court to that effect,” although a misstatement of the law, was not prejudicial to the accused; the error complained of not appearing in any instruction of the court.</p>