Wright v. State

Citations

• 50 Miss. 332

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law — Practice—Evidence.—W. was indicted for the murder of K. Prior to the finding of the indictment, he was tried before a justice of the peace, before whom he made a voluntary statement, which was taken down in writing. On the trial in the circuit court, M., a witness for the state, was permitted to testify to what the accused said in his voluntary statement before the committing magistrate, in opposition to objections from defendant’s counsel. Held, that the admission of the testimony was error.</p> <p>2. Same — Evidence—Admissibility. — As a general rule, the law requires the production of the best evidence of which the nature of the case in its nature is susceptible. Not the greatest amount of evidence of any fact, but its design is to prevent the introduction of any which, from the case, supposes that better evidence is in possession of the party. As the statute requires that the justice of the peace shall reduce to writing the voluntary confession of the accused, and shall certify and send up the same to the next term of the circuit court of the proper county, the law conclusively presumes that he performed his whole duty. If it be shown that the examination was not reduced to writing, or if the written examination is wholly inadmissible by reason of irregularity, parol evidence is admissible to prove what he voluntarily disclosed. And if it remains uncertain whether it was reduced to writing by the magistrate or not, it will he presumed thathe did his duty, and oral evidence will be rejected. Greenleaf’s Ev., 359, sec. 227. The written statement should have been produced; the oral evidence?of the witness should have been rejected. It was secondary and inferior. Peter v. The State, 4 S. & M., 31.</p>