Fugate v. State

Citations

• 85 Miss. 86

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law. Murder. Jurors. Voir dire examination. Reasonable doubt.</p> <p>A man’s conception of a reasonable doubt is not a proper subject of inguiry when he is presented as a juror in a criminal case and examined on his voir dire.</p> <p>2. Same. Estimate of witness.</p> <p>Whether a proffered juror would believe a certain witness for the state on oath is not a proper subject of inguiry upon his voir dire examination in a criminal case.</p> <p>3. Same. Evidence. Witnesses differing.</p> <p>Where testimony touching a certain conversation with the accused, unquestionably relating to the deceased, is otherwise competent, it is not rendered inadmissible in evidence because the witnesses fail to corroborate each other in some particulars concerning it.</p> <p>4. Same. Theories. Duty of jury.</p> <p>The rule that where there are two reasonable theories as to the facts of a killing, one favorable and the other unfavorable to the accused, the jury are bound to accept the favorable one, only applies in case the jury be in doubt as to the correctness of the unfavorable one.</p> <p>5. Same. Instructions. Modifications. Harmless error.</p> <p>Where the court instructed the jury in a murder case to the effect that the accused was presumed to be innocent, and that the presumption was an instrument of proof whereby his innocence was established until sufficient evidence should be introduced to overcome it, the erroneous modification of another part of the instruction, charging that the presumption of innocence is not merely a presumption of law, but is evidence in behalf of the accused, by striking out the word “evidence” and inserting “presumption,” does not constitute reversible error.</p>