Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Nate S. Williamson, J.A. Riddell, and E.T. Strange, of Meridian, for appellant. The true rule of evidence of former convictions is expressed in: Dodds v. State, 45 So. 863; Powers v. State, 156 Miss. 316, 126 So. 12; Tuberville v. State, 179 So. 340; Mars v. Hendon, 178 Miss. 157, 173 So. 286. The falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus instruction is in direct violation of Section 586, Code of 1930, which provided that "the judge shall not charge the jury as to the weight of evidence." Jones v. State, 11 S. M. 315; Barcus v. State, 49 Miss. 17; Gentry v. State, 92 Miss. 141, 45 So. 721; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Wright, 190 Miss. 53, 199 So. 289. A.M. Byrd, Assistant Attorney-General, for appellee. We recognize that the law of this state is that ordinarily the only inquiry about former convictions that may be made upon cross-examination of a witness is the fact of the conviction and what crime was involved. However, where a number of prior convictions have occurred, this court has recognized the right of the cross examiner to indulge in sufficient latitude regarding details to show all of the convictions. Secs. 1531, 1532, Code of 1930; Brown v. State, 96 Miss. 534, 51 So. 273; Bufkin v. Grisham, 157 Miss. 746, 128 So. 563; Walker v. State, 151 Miss. 862, 119 So. 796; Jackson v. State, 75 Miss. 145, 21 So. 707. In the case of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Larkin, 199 So. 293, which was a companion case to Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Wright, supra, this court reversed the judgment of the lower court because of an identical error to the other error committed in the last mentioned case, only the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus instruction not having been given. Hence, it is logical to conclude that the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus instruction given in the case of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Wright, supra, though held to be error, was not considered as reversible error. We call the attention of this court further to the fact that this instruction was given by the trial court during the trial of the case at bar prior to the decision in the case of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Wright, supra, and at the time when the bench and bar of this state considered the decision of this court in the case of Turner v. State, 95 Miss. 879, 50 So. 629, to be the controlling law in the premises, where this court held it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse an instruction similar to the one here being considered. And we submit further that the giving of this instruction could not have been prejudicial to the appellant, because both the appellant and the state offered numerous witnesses, and the pronouncement of this instruction was applicable to each and every one of them alike. And, furthermore, in view of the manifest guilt of the appellant, as reflected by the evidence in this case, it is not logical to view it that the appellant was harmed by the giving of this instruction. Argued orally by J.A. Riddell, for appellant, and by A.M. Byrd, for appellee.
Judges
  • Smith, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.
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)
  • Nate S. Williamson, J.A. Riddell, and E.T. Strange, of Meridian, for appellant. The true rule of evidence of former convictions is expressed in: Dodds v. State, 45 So. 863; Powers v. State, 156 Miss. 316, 126 So. 12; Tuberville v. State, 179 So. 340; Mars v. Hendon, 178 Miss. 157, 173 So. 286. The falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus instruction is in direct violation of Section 586, Code of 1930, which provided that "the judge shall not charge the jury as to the weight of evidence." Jones v. State, 11 S. M. 315; Barcus v. State, 49 Miss. 17; Gentry v. State, 92 Miss. 141, 45 So. 721; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Wright, 190 Miss. 53, 199 So. 289. A.M. Byrd, Assistant Attorney-General, for appellee. We recognize that the law of this state is that ordinarily the only inquiry about former convictions that may be made upon cross-examination of a witness is the fact of the conviction and what crime was involved. However, where a number of prior convictions have occurred, this court has recognized the right of the cross examiner to indulge in sufficient latitude regarding details to show all of the convictions. Secs. 1531, 1532, Code of 1930; Brown v. State, 96 Miss. 534, 51 So. 273; Bufkin v. Grisham, 157 Miss. 746, 128 So. 563; Walker v. State, 151 Miss. 862, 119 So. 796; Jackson v. State, 75 Miss. 145, 21 So. 707. In the case of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Larkin, 199 So. 293, which was a companion case to Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Wright, supra, this court reversed the judgment of the lower court because of an identical error to the other error committed in the last mentioned case, only the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus instruction not having been given. Hence, it is logical to conclude that the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus instruction given in the case of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Wright, supra, though held to be error, was not considered as reversible error. We call the attention of this court further to the fact that this instruction was given by the trial court during the trial of the case at bar prior to the decision in the case of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Wright, supra, and at the time when the bench and bar of this state considered the decision of this court in the case of Turner v. State, 95 Miss. 879, 50 So. 629, to be the controlling law in the premises, where this court held it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse an instruction similar to the one here being considered. And we submit further that the giving of this instruction could not have been prejudicial to the appellant, because both the appellant and the state offered numerous witnesses, and the pronouncement of this instruction was applicable to each and every one of them alike. And, furthermore, in view of the manifest guilt of the appellant, as reflected by the evidence in this case, it is not logical to view it that the appellant was harmed by the giving of this instruction. Argued orally by J.A. Riddell, for appellant, and by A.M. Byrd, for appellee.
Judges
  • Smith, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

SWANNER v. STATE.

CRIMINAL LAW.

The trial court, under the evidence, committed reversible error in granting an instruction to the state based on the "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" maxim.

Smith, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

No error appears, with one exception, in the rulings of the court below of which the appellant complains. The court did not succeed in restricting the cross-examination of the appellant as to former convictions of crime to the limits permitted by Section 1532 of the Code of 1930, but that aside, the court erred in granting an instruction to the State based on the "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" maxim, Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Wright, 190 Miss. 53, 199 So. 289, and on the evidence here presented committed reversible error in granting it.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Comments

SWANNER v. STATE
(May 12, 1941)