Hall v. State

Citations

• 128 Miss. 641
• 91 So. 397

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law. Omission from instruction on manslaughter of requirements that jury he satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt held harmless, in view of other instructions.</p> <p>Where a person was indicted for murder, and the state obtained a manslaughter instruction, which omitted the fact that the jury must believe from the evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt’’ that the defendant was guilty, but all of the instructions for the defendant contained this clause, and the jury were instructed upon every phase of the case for the defendant, the jury could not have been misled by this omission.</p> <p>2. CRIMINAL Law. Jury may believe some facts testified to by state’s witnesses and other facts testified to by defendant’s witnesses in case of a conflict as to facts of homicicte.</p> <p>Where there is a conflict in the testimony as to the facts of the homicide, the jury are not compelled to believe all of the facts testified to by the witnesses for the state or the defendant. They may believe some of the facts testified to by the state’s witnesses and other facts testified to by those of the defendant.</p> <p>3. Homicide. Evidence that deceased cursed defendant, causing defendant to shoot him in the heat of passion and not in necessary self-defense, held to warrant a verdict of manslaughter.</p> <p>Where a jury is warranted in believing from the testimony +hat the deceased cursed and abused the defendant, thereby causing the defendant to shoot him in the heat of passion, and not in necessary self-defense, then the jury are warranted in returning a verdict of manslaughter, 'and a manslaughter instruction is proper.</p>