Prewitt v. State
Citations
- 106 Miss. 82
- 63 So. 330
Syllabus
<p>1. CRIMINAL Law. Admission of evidence. Insanity. Appeal. Harmless error. Exclusion of evidence. Judicial notice. Heredity. Words and phrases. Hypothetical questions. Opinion evidence.</p> <p>While in a prosecution for a criminal offense where accused pleaded insanity, it is proper to allow accused to show by a physician whether insanity was hereditary, after introducing evidence of the insanity of his blood relatives, this is not necessary as the court will take judicial notice of the fact that insanity is hereditary.</p> <p>'2. Words and Phrases. Heredity.</p> <p>“Heredity” is a universal law of organic life, being that biological law by which all living beings tend to repeat themselves in their descendants.</p> <p>:3. Criminal Law. Appeal. Harmless error. Exclusive of evidence.</p> <p>If it had been error, in a prosecution of a criminal offense in which accused pleaded insanity, to exclude evidence that insanity was hereditary, such error was cured by the giving of an instruction for the defendant, that it had been proven by undisputed testimony that there was insanity in accused’s family and that a predisposition to insanity on the part of defendant had been proven and that these facts should be considered established.</p> <p>4. Cbimiwai. Law. Evidence. Hypothetical questions.</p> <p>It was not error for the trial court to sustain an objection to the questions propounded to an éxpert witness as set out in the opinion of the court, since such questions mixed an imperfect hypothetical- statement of facts with the information obtained by the witness from, listening to the testimony of the other witnesses, and. the second question calls for an opinion based both on personal knowledge of the defendant and upon an examination of the facts testified to by the other witnesses at the trial.</p> <p>5. Same.</p> <p>Where a witness is not testifying of his own knowledge the usual and proper method of examining an expert, where it is sought to obtain his opinion, is to pr
Judges: Cook, Smith
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Cannaday v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1984-05-16· cited 305×
- King v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1964-11-16· cited 86×
- Harvey v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1968-02-19· cited 64×
- State Ex Rel. Richardson v. EdgeworthMississippi Supreme Court· 1968-09-30· cited 46×
- Carleton v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1983-01-14· cited 41×
- Collins v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1978-08-02· cited 17×
- Providence Washington Insurance v. WeaverMississippi Supreme Court· 1961-10-23· cited 12×
- Ramon v. WorshamTexas Commission of Appeals· 1931-11-12· cited 3×
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.