Gillum v. State

Citations

• 62 Miss. 547

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law. Venire facias. Irregularities in service. Motion to quash return.</p> <p>The fact that a special venire facias in a capital case was served by a person not having the writ in his possession and having no written appointment as a deputy sheriff, is not a good ground for a motion to quash the return on the writ, if it appears that the writ was executed by a person professing to act for the sheriff.</p> <p>2. Same. Failure to summon all of venire. Alias writ.</p> <p>And the defendant, in such case, is not entitled to an alias venire facias because some of those named in the original writ for jurors were not found, where it appears that diligent efforts were made to summon all of them.</p> <p>3. Murder. Circumstantial evidence. Motive.</p> <p>In the trial of a charge of murder, depending upon circumstantial evidence; am indictment against the defendant for another offense, found previously to, the killing, is not: admissible to show a motive in the accused, when it is not proven that the deceased had any connection with that indictment or that the accused knew of its existence.</p> <p>4. Murder. Proof of motive. Indictment procured by deceased.</p> <p>Where, however, it is shown that, prior to the killing, the defendant in such case knew'of an indictment against himself for a misdemeanor, which he believed to have been procured by the deceased, and had threatened to kill him for it, the indictment is competent as a part of the evidence to establish a motiye for the crime charged.</p> <p>6. Conspiracy. Evidence. Admissibility of declarations.</p> <p>The declarations of a conspirator are not admissible against a co-conspirator, if not uttered in the presence of the latter, unless made while doing some act in furtherance of the common purpose.</p>