Owens v. State

Citations

• 82 Miss. 18

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law. Witness. Inducement to testify.</p> <p>Where a state’s witness, wbo bad been convicted of tbe crime, stated upon cross-examination on tbe trial of bis co-defendant that no inducement bad been offered him to testify as be bad done, the state should not be permitted' to prove tbe truth of tbe statement by tbe prosecuting attorney.</p> <p>2. Same. Murder. Accessory before the fact. Code 1892, § 950. Sudden altercation. Instruction.</p> <p>Where the state proceeds in a murder case on tbe theory that tbe defendant was an accessory before tbe fact (under tbe statute, code of 1892, § 950, a principal) and bad armed and instigated an hireling to aid two other persons in committing tbe murder, it was error to refuse defendant an instruction, there being testimony of which to predicate it, directing tbe jury to acquit, if they believed from tbe evidence that tbe hireling killed deceased, not in pursuance of defendant’s instigation, but alone because of a sudden and unexpected altercation between deceased and one of tbe two persons mentioned.</p> <p>3. Same. Verdict. Ambiguity.</p> <p>Where the terms of a verdict are ambiguous the court is authorized and under a duty to have the jury make their meaning plain.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>In a murder case, the jury being authorized upon conviction to- fix defendant’s punishment at imprisonment for life in .the penitentiary, a verdict in these words, “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, and fix the penalty to serve a term in the state penitentiary, and ask the mercy of the- court,” is insufficient .to support a judgment sentencing defendant to the penitentiary for life, each juror having stated upon the return of the verdict, in response to the court, that he did not mean that a death sentence should be imposed and most of them that the word “term” in the verdict meant less than life imprisonment.</p>