Cook v. State

Citations

• 85 Miss. 738

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law. Homicide. Evidence. Boasting.</p> <p>Testimony is admissible in a murder case to show statements made by the accused, several hours after the killing, boasting of the • deed.</p> <p>3. Same. Co-defendant. Previous conviction of crime.</p> <p>It is not competent in a murder case to show that defendant’s brother, who participated in the killing and had been indicted therefor, had been convicted of crime two years before in a municipal court then presided over by the deceased, where the evidence showed that the killing arose out of the occasion,, without reference to any previous trouble.</p> <p>3. Same. Witnesses. Code 1892, § 1746.</p> <p>Under Code 1892, § 1746, authorizing the interrogation of witnesses as to whether they have been convicted of crime, in order to determine their credibility, testimony of a conviction cannot be-given by others until the witness has first denied the same.</p> <p>4. Same. Instruction. Assumption of fact.</p> <p>Where at the time deceased picked up a weapon the defendant was. being securely held by two men and therefore unable to make an attack, an instruction which assumes that the deceased picked up the weapon to defend himself from an assault by defendant is erroneous.</p> <p>5. Same. Murder or manslaughter. Question for jury.</p> <p>Whether a defendant was guilty of murder or of manslaughter should be left to the determination of the jury, although the evidence shows an unpremeditated killing by defendant’s brother in response to the request of defendant who had just been engaged in a fight, and was being held by two men, confronted by deceased armed with a stick to attack some one, when he made the request.</p> <p>6. Same. Presumptions of innocence.</p> <p>All persons are presumed to be absolutely innocent of a crime charged against them, in its entirety, and in all its material parts, until the jury finds to the contrary on proper instructions, based on competent and relevant testimony.</p>