Quinn v. State

Citations

• 106 Miss. 844
• 64 So. 738

Syllabus

<p>1. Homicide. Cause of death. Disease. Instructions. Burden of proof.</p> <p>If death, ensues from a wound given in malice, but not in its nature mortal, but from which, being neglected or mismanaged, or in connection with other disease, the party .dies, the party who gave the wound is guilty of murder.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>But if the wound is not in its nature mortal, and death results solely from an entirely independent cause, the person inflicting the wound cannot be held responsible for the death.</p> <p>3. Homicide. Instructions. Burden of proof.</p> <p>An instruction that “if death ensues from a wound given in malice, but not in its nature mortal, but from which, in connection with other disease, th'e party dies, this will not excuse the party who gave it, but he will be held guilty of murder, unless it clearly and certainly appears, either by the evidence offered on behalf of the state or the defendant, that the disease disconnected from the wound and not the wound itself, was the sole cause of his death, for if the wound had not been given, the party had not died,” is erroneous since it relieves the state from the burden of proving, beyond all reasonable doubt, the guilt of accused, as accused was entitled to an acquittal, unless it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt that the disease was not the sole cause of his death, but that his death was contributed to by the wound.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>Such instruction was further erroneous in advising the jury in this connection that “if the wound had not been given the party had not died.” If the disease was the sole cause of the death, it cannot be said that if the wound had not been given the party had not died.</p>