Summary
In Coleman v. State, 155 Miss. 482, 124 So. 652 (1929), we held that in a prosecution for robbery the positive and unequivocal testimony of one state witness identifying the defendants as the persons who robbed him, such witness not being impeached in any manner known to law, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, although the defendant and several witnesses testified to an alibi.
Summary of this case from Davis v. StateOpinion
No. 28248.
November 25, 1929.
ROBBERY. Positive and unequivocable testimony of state witnesses identifying defendants was sufficient to sustain conviction for robbery.
In a prosecution for robbery, the positive and unequivocable testimony of a state witness identifying the defendants as the persons who robbed him, such witness not being impeached in any manner known to the law, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, although several witnesses testified for the defendants to an alibi.
APPEAL from circuit court of Pontotoc county. HON.C.P. LONG, Judge.
Bratton Mitchell, of Pontotoc, for appellants.
The only question to be determined is whether the prosecuting witness was mistaken as to the persons that robbed him. The testimony shows very conclusively that the defendants were from ten to twelve miles away from the scene at the time of the alleged robbery.
W.A. Shipman, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
The rule is that it is the province of the jury to determine the credit due witnesses and that the verdict will not be set aside if there is evidence in the record to sustain it.
Hughes v. State, 2 Miss. Dec. 88; Owens v. State, 63 Miss. 450; Hardy v. State, 143 Miss. 352, 108 So. 727; Alexander v. State, 21 So. 923; Ransom v. State, 149 Miss. 262, 115 So. 208; Blockman v. State, 149 Miss. 212, 115 So. 399.
The appellants were indicted and tried and convicted of robbing Archie Reed.
It appears that Reed lived by himself some ten or twelve miles from the town of Pontotoc. He was awakened one night along about the first of September, 1928, by some one calling him, he went to the door, struck a light, and then opened the door, and the two defendants grabbed him; one of them took the keys from his pocket, opened his wardrobe, and took therefrom a pistol and razor. Reed resisted the attempt to rob him and was struck over the head and dazed. The state's witness testified that he identified the two defendants positively, although they had flour or soda, or something of the kind, smeared around upon their faces. He had known the defendants for several years. After he was robbed he went to a neighbor and disclosed the fact, telling some of the circumstances. On the following morning he tracked them some little distance from his house. One of the defendants, when arrested on information given by Reed, had either flour and grease or soda and grease around his ears and in his hair and eyebrows and undertook to explain it being there on the theory that he was trying to wash the grease out of his hair.
The only error assigned is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The state's witness Reed was emphatic and positive as to his identification of the defendants; they were in the room of his house and the lamp was burning. It appears that he had ample opportunity to identify them, as they both were in the light and he had known them for some time. It is true the defendants offered a number of witnesses to prove an alibi for each, and each testified that he was not at the scene and that they were not together. There was no impeachment of Reed's testimony by impeaching his credibility or reputation for veracity. It was therefore a question for the jury to determine the truth from the evidence, and in law there was sufficient evidence to sustain conviction. It is well known that some persons have a much higher regard for the truth than others, and one person's reputation may be such in a community that his word would outweigh in the scales of probability that of several other witnesses of less credibility.
The judgment must therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed.