Smith v. State
Citations
- 58 Miss. 867
Syllabus
<p>1. Criminal Law. Application for continuance. Case in judgment.</p> <p>On the day fixed for his trial, S., who had been, indicted for murder, moved for a continuance of his case because of the absence of certain witnesses by whom he expected to prove his good character for peace in the neighborhood in which he resided, and the bad character for veracity of the principal witness for the State. The places of residence of the witnesses were not stated; nor does the record show any subpoena issued for them. Upon this application a continuance was granted. The case was then transferred to another county, and when it came on for trial there, S. again moved for a continuance upon the same showing, substantially, as that made on his first application. The affidavit upon which the application was based did not show that the witnesses named had ever been subpoenaed; nor did it allege that there were no other persons by whom the facts sought to be established could be proven. The Circuit Court overruled the second motion. Held, that the action of the court below was correct.</p> <p>2. Indictment. Form. Date of commission of offence.</p> <p>The charge in an indictment that the crime was committed on the “twentieth day of April, 1880,” is equivalent to a charge that it was done on the “ twentieth day of April, a. d. 1880.” But, under sect. 2803 of the Code of 1871, an indictment which avers no date for the commission of the offence is valid.</p> <p>3. Same. “ Contra forma.” Sect. 2884, Code of 1871.</p> <p>■ Under sect. 2884 of the Code of 1871, the words “contrary to the form of the statute ” are not essential to the validity of an indictment.</p> <p>4. Same. Indorsement of “filed.” Effect.</p> <p>The indorsement upon an indictment of the word “filed” by the clerk is sufficient evidence that the indictment was properly found by the grand jury and returned into court. Acts 1878, p. 199; Code 1880, sect. 3006.</p> <p>5. Criminal Law. Competency of juror. Conscientious scruples
Judges: Cooper
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Lamar v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1885-10-15· cited 74×
- Tucker v. TuckerMississippi Supreme Court· 1896-03-15· cited 52×
- Westmoreland v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1971-01-25· cited 47×
- State v. HastySupreme Court of Iowa· 1903-10-23· cited 41×
- Wood v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1972-01-17· cited 28×
- Wilson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 2004-12-02· cited 28×
- Lamarcus Jones v. State of MississippiMississippi Supreme Court· 2016-08-11· cited 25×
- Fenner v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia· 1929-06-13· cited 23×
- People v. MillsMichigan Supreme Court· 1893-02-17· cited 23×
- Blair v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1984-02-08· cited 20×
- Spain v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1881-10-15· cited 14×
- Burnett v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1895-03-15· cited 7×
- Bishop v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1884-10-15· cited 5×
- Williams v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1907-10-15· cited 5×
- Borowitz v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1917-03-15· cited 5×
- Donald Wilson v. State of MississippiMississippi Supreme Court· 2003-08-22
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Boon v. F. M. Weathered's AdministratorTexas Supreme Court· 1859-07-01· cited 75×
- Head v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1870-10-15· cited 53×
- Nugent v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama· 1850-06-15· cited 35×
- State v. ShieldsSupreme Court of Missouri· 1850-03-15· cited 21×
- Inhabitants of Phillips v. Inhabitants of KingfieldSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1841-06-15· cited 14×
- Jones v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1880-04-15· cited 6×
- AnonymousMississippi Supreme Court· 1859-04-15· cited 5×
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.