Hemphill v. State

Citations

• 71 Miss. 877

Syllabus

<p>1. Perjury. Contradictory oaths. Testimony before grand jury. Evidence.</p> <p>On a trial for perjury, alleged to have been committed before the grand jury, proof that accused had given contradictory testimony, in that, before the grand jury, he had sworn that a person under investigation for unlawful retailing had sold him whisky, and that afterwards, on the trial of such person, he had sworn directly the contrary, when supplemented by the testimony of such person that he had not sold accused ’ the whisky, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.</p> <p>2. Same. Falsity of testimony. Evidence.</p> <p>On such trial for perjury, the court properly excluded testimony that the person who accused had sworn before the grand jury had sold him intoxicating liquors, and who had been acquitted therefor, had, on another and distinct occasion, sold intoxicating liquors to witness, and had been convicted therefor.</p> <p>3. Same. Conflicting oaths. Instruction. Error cured.</p> <p>Where, in such case, conflicting oaths by the accused having been proved, an instruction for the state, after defining perjury, directs a conviction if the guilt of accused is shown by the testimony of two witnesses, or by the testimony of one witness and corroborating circumstances, he cannot complain that it is misleading because not predicated on the falsity of the particular oath alleged in the indictment, if his own instructions announce the correct rule as to this.</p>