Ingram v. State

Citations

• 62 Miss. 142

Syllabus

<p>1. Murder. Presumption arising from kitting. How rebutted. Instruction.</p> <p>In tlie trial of an indictment for murder, it is error for the court to instruct the jury that in order to rebut the presumption of malice arising from proof of the killing, it is incumbent on the defendant to show circumstances of alleviation, excuse, or justification to the “ satisfaction ” of the jury, unless the same appear by the evidence for the State. Hawthorne v. The State, 58 Miss. 778, cited; Harris v. The State, 47 Miss. 318, disregarded.</p> <p>2. Homicide. Self-defense,. Actual danger. Instruction.</p> <p>It is error for the court to instruct the jury, in a trial for homicide, that to justify the killing as in self-defense the accused must have been in “ actual” danger from the deceased.</p> <p>3. Criminad Practice. Fault of giving too many instructions. JRemed/y suggested,.</p> <p>The frequent commission of error in instructions in criminal cases suggests the opinion that it would promote the just administration of the law and advance the interests of the State if it were the practice in the circuit courts to give fewer instructions. In many cases it would be wise to give no instructions at all for the State, and in none is it prudent to give many. By the adoption of such a course, convictions would be as numerous as before and reversals would be rare.</p>