Skip to main content

Leverett v. State

Citations

  • 112 Miss. 394
  • 73 So. 273

Syllabus

<p>1. Ceiminal Law. Trial. Court’s remarks in selecting jury. Homicide. Admissibility of evidence. Previous uncommunicated threats by decedent. Previous communicated threats: Self defense. Circumstances -preceding act. Instructions. Weight of evidence. Ignoring defendant’s version.</p> <p>Where on a. trial for .homicide the whole trend of the voir dire examination was to influence the proposed jurors against the defendant and to strongly impress them with the idea that their duty was to convict; and each juror was given to understand that he would he a man of very little moral courage unless he found a verdict of guilty, such an examination was erroneous and very prejudicial to the defendant.</p> <p>Homicide. Admissibility of uncommunicated threats by decedent.</p> <p>It was prejudicial error on a trial for homicide, to exclude testimony of'uncommunicated threats by decedent against accused where accused claimed to have acted in self defense, since such threats indicated the feeling of deceased toward accused.</p> <p>Same.</p> <p>It was also prejudicial error to exclude testimony by the deceased towards accused where such threats had been communicated to accused before the killing.</p> <p>Same.</p> <p>Where there was evidence that decedent had made threats against accused at a certain place, it was prejudicial error to exclude corroborative evidence that deceased was in fact, at the time mentioned, at such place.</p> <p>Homicide. Admissibility of evidence. Self defense.</p> <p>Where accused claimed he killed deceased in self defense in a quarrel, over deceased’s improper relations with defendant’s wife, it was prejudicial error to exclude the wife’s testimony that she had written a letter found by accused on the person of deceased, since such evidence had a tendency to prove the corroborative circumstances of the defense genuine.</p> <p>Homicide. Admissibility of evidence. Self defense. Circumstances preceding the act.</p> <p>Where on a trial for homicide accused cl

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • reversing where whole trend of voir dire intended to impress jury with idea that their duty was to convict.
  • reversing where whole trend of voir dire intended to impress jury with idea that their duty was to convict
  • reversing where whole trend of voir dire intended to impress jury with idea that their duty was to convict.
  • reversing where whole trend of voir dire intended to impress jury with idea that their duty was to convict
  • reversing in part because an instruction similar to D-5-A was not given
  • reversing in part because an instruction similar to D-5-A was not given

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pottek

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.