Sparks v. State

Citations

• 113 Miss. 266
• 74 So. 123

Syllabus

<p>1. Homicide. Participation in crimes. Proof of conspiracy.</p> <p>Where on the trial of a defendant for murder there was ample evidence to show he was a joint actor and active participant in the shooting, to make him liable as a joint actor in the killing, regardless of whether or not he fired the fatal shot; in such case proof of a conspiracy was not necessary to convict him.</p> <p>2. Homicide. Dying declaration. Competency.</p> <p>Where, during the shooting, deceased told one of the defendants not to shoot any more because he had already killed him, and after such declaration, deceased in response to an inquiry as to who shot him, accused the defendant of shooting him, upon the trial of the other defendant the latter statement was not competent as a dying declaration for either party.</p> <p>3. Homicide. Dying declaration. Admissibility.</p> <p>While a dying declaration is admissible on behalf of a defendant accused of murder as well as for the state, it is not admissible for either unless the proper predicate for its admission is laid.</p> <p>4. Homicide. Dying declaration.</p> <p>Because of the lack of the sanctity of an oath and the absence of the opportunity of cross-examniation before a dying declaration can be received as evidence, it must be shown by clear proof that at the time, there was, on the part of the deceased, a settled belief of impending death and the absence of all hope, however slight, of recovery. It is not necessary that he should have' stated such belief nor on the other hand, is his mere statement thereof conclusive as to its existence.</p>