Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • W. Arlington Jones, Hattiesburg, for appellants. I. The Court erred in refusing to permit the defendants to recall the prosecuting witness, Harold Stanley, to testify, and erred in refusing to permit the defendants to show that the prosecuting witness, Harold Stanley, had made threats to the defendants, and therefore, the Court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Boutwell v. State, 165 Miss. 16, 143 So. 479; Lambert v. State, 199 Miss. 790, 225 So.2d 477. G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. I. In order to impeach witnesses by his alleged previous statements or conversations, he must, by the predicate, be apprised of the time, place, and persons present, and the particular matter as to which it is designed to impeach the witness must be distinctly presented to his or her attention. Harrison v. State, 168 Miss. 699, 152 So. 494. II. The granting or refusing of such a request to recall a witness to the stand is largely within the discretion of the trial judge and there is no abuse of that discretion shown here. Appellant knew of the necessity for laying the predicate when Stanley was originally on the stand. Phillips v. State (Miss.), 43 So.2d 208.
Judges
  • HALL, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • W. Arlington Jones, Hattiesburg, for appellants. I. The Court erred in refusing to permit the defendants to recall the prosecuting witness, Harold Stanley, to testify, and erred in refusing to permit the defendants to show that the prosecuting witness, Harold Stanley, had made threats to the defendants, and therefore, the Court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Boutwell v. State, 165 Miss. 16, 143 So. 479; Lambert v. State, 199 Miss. 790, 225 So.2d 477. G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. I. In order to impeach witnesses by his alleged previous statements or conversations, he must, by the predicate, be apprised of the time, place, and persons present, and the particular matter as to which it is designed to impeach the witness must be distinctly presented to his or her attention. Harrison v. State, 168 Miss. 699, 152 So. 494. II. The granting or refusing of such a request to recall a witness to the stand is largely within the discretion of the trial judge and there is no abuse of that discretion shown here. Appellant knew of the necessity for laying the predicate when Stanley was originally on the stand. Phillips v. State (Miss.), 43 So.2d 208.
Judges
  • HALL, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

ECHOLS FUTRELL KELLY AND CHARLES WALLACE v. STATE

1. Appeal — evidence — case presented purely a question of fact — judgment on jury verdict affirmed.

Where the case presented purely a question of fact and the jury decided the case on such disputed testimony, the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.

Headnote as approved by McGehee, C.J.

HALL, J.

(Hn 1) This case presents purely a question of fact as there was testimony sharply conflicting and the jury had decided the case on this undisputed testimony. That being true, the judgment of the lower court should be, and it is, hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Lee, Arrington, Gillespie and McElroy, JJ., concurring.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

KELLY AND WALLACE v. STATE
(Nov 28, 1960)