Mayes v. State
Citations
- 64 Miss. 329
Syllabus
<p>1. Murder. Evidence, lies gestee. Case in judgment.</p> <p>At a social gathering at night, during which intoxicating liquors had been freely used, a fight occurred between A. and K. S interfered and A. received a wound from which he died. S. was indicted and put upon trial on a charge of having murdered A. The witnesses for the State testified that while A. and K. were fighting, S. ran in between them, threw his. arm around A., and cut him across the stomach with a knife, inflicting the wound from which death resulted. The witnesses for the accused testified that he did not inflict any wound on A., but only separated him and K., and that K. gave the fatal blow. H., a witness for the State, testified to a statement made by A. under these circumstances: When A. was cut he immediately ran a distance of from one hundred to one hundred and ten yards (pursued a part of the way by S., who repeatedly snapped a pistol at him, but who turned back before A. ceased running) into some woods and lay down. H. walked in the direction in which A. had gone, and while thus going one L. called to him, saying: “Here is A. out in the’woods with his guts cut out.” Before getting to A., H., heard him and L. talking. H. reached A. in about five minutes after the wound had been given, and A. then said to him, “ H., S. has cut my guts out; did you see him ?” This statement of the deceased, as testified to by H., was objected to by the defendant, but was admitted in evidence by the court, as a part of the res gestae. Held, that such statement was not a part of the res gestae, and was erroneously admitted in evidence.</p> <p>¡2. Criminal Practice. Eoidenee. Bule as to res gestae.</p> <p>It is improper fot a court to admit evidence of á statement as being a part of the res gestae on the ground that such statement will throw light upon the transaction under investigation, or that it was made so soon after the occurrence as to exclude the presumption that it has been fabricated, or that it was
Judges: Coopeb
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. BaierNebraska Supreme Court· 1893-06-29· cited 47×
- Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. SteinIndiana Supreme Court· 1892-05-14· cited 45×
- New York Life Ins. Co. v. SchlatterFifth Circuit· 1953-05-06· cited 34×
- State v. YoungWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1980-12-19· cited 33×
- Chicago West Division Railway Co. v. BeckerIllinois Supreme Court· 1889-05-16· cited 30×
- Huron Printing & Bindery Co. v. KittlesonSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1894-01-06· cited 11×
- Haney v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1922-03-15· cited 9×
- Hall v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1922-03-15· cited 4×
- Tyler v. PowellMississippi Supreme Court· 1972-05-22· cited 1×
- Lloyd v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1892-10-15
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.