Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • J.H. Garth, of Hazlehurst, for appellant. Taking the evidence in its strongest light and assuming all of the evidence introduced on behalf of the state to be true, it only raises a suspicion that the appellant might have been guilty. In substance, this evidence is that one of the officers, on the day before the search was made, saw the appellant and a negro woman carrying two suitcases which seemed to be heavy into the home of the appellant's mother, Mrs. J.B. Kelly, Sr. The next day, when the search was made, the officers found two suitcases that contained twenty-three pints and eighteen half-pints of whisky. The officer would not and did not testify that these were the same suitcases which he saw the appellant and the negro woman carrying. There was no testimony to show that the appellant had anything to do with the whisky that was found by the officers. The evidence for the state does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis that the appellant possessed or controlled the whisky found by the officers. Mere grounds for suspicion do not justify a conviction of crime. City of Hazlehurst v. Byrd, 57 So. 360. The guilt of an accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. King v. State, 21 So. 235, 74 Miss. 576; Lamb v. State, 79 So. 849, 118 Miss. 693; Garland v. State, 94 So. 210, 130 Miss. 310; Loggins v. State, 136 So. 922, 161 Miss. 272; McLaurin v. State, 113 So. 445, 148 Miss. 53; Johnson v. State (Miss.), 191 So. 127; Cogsdell v. State, 185 So. 206, 183 Miss. 826. W.D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for appellee. Appellant insists that she was entitled to a directed verdict because the evidence did not attain to that degree required in circumstantial evidence cases. Since there was no identification of the suitcases found as being the ones which Mrs. Manning was alleged to have had in her possession on the day before, we are inclined to the view that appellant's contention is well taken. However, we submit this matter to the court for its decision.
Judges
  • McGowen, 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)
  • J.H. Garth, of Hazlehurst, for appellant. Taking the evidence in its strongest light and assuming all of the evidence introduced on behalf of the state to be true, it only raises a suspicion that the appellant might have been guilty. In substance, this evidence is that one of the officers, on the day before the search was made, saw the appellant and a negro woman carrying two suitcases which seemed to be heavy into the home of the appellant's mother, Mrs. J.B. Kelly, Sr. The next day, when the search was made, the officers found two suitcases that contained twenty-three pints and eighteen half-pints of whisky. The officer would not and did not testify that these were the same suitcases which he saw the appellant and the negro woman carrying. There was no testimony to show that the appellant had anything to do with the whisky that was found by the officers. The evidence for the state does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis that the appellant possessed or controlled the whisky found by the officers. Mere grounds for suspicion do not justify a conviction of crime. City of Hazlehurst v. Byrd, 57 So. 360. The guilt of an accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. King v. State, 21 So. 235, 74 Miss. 576; Lamb v. State, 79 So. 849, 118 Miss. 693; Garland v. State, 94 So. 210, 130 Miss. 310; Loggins v. State, 136 So. 922, 161 Miss. 272; McLaurin v. State, 113 So. 445, 148 Miss. 53; Johnson v. State (Miss.), 191 So. 127; Cogsdell v. State, 185 So. 206, 183 Miss. 826. W.D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for appellee. Appellant insists that she was entitled to a directed verdict because the evidence did not attain to that degree required in circumstantial evidence cases. Since there was no identification of the suitcases found as being the ones which Mrs. Manning was alleged to have had in her possession on the day before, we are inclined to the view that appellant's contention is well taken. However, we submit this matter to the court for its decision.
Judges
  • McGowen, J., delivered the opinion of the court.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

MANNING v. STATE.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS.

Evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction on indictment charging defendant with unlawful possession of whisky.

McGowen, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The evidence was wholly insufficient to sustain the conviction on an indictment charging appellant with the unlawful possession of whisky. The Assistant Attorney General agrees with this conclusion.

The cause is reversed and appellant discharged.

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

Comments

MANNING v. STATE
(Dec 9, 1940)