Opinion
No. 30245.
February 6, 1933. Suggestion of Error Overruled March 6, 1933.
1. CRIMINAL LAW.
Generally, return of indictment into court raises presumption that all necessary legal requisites were complied with.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.
Presentment of indictment in court by grand jury foreman in other grand jurors' presence implies concurrence of requisite number thereof (Code 1930, sections 1197, 1198).
3. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.
Burden was on accused, moving to quash indictment duly signed, presented and filed, to prove that twelve grand jurors did not concur, and that district attorney was in grand jury room when indictment was found; affidavits as to such facts being insufficient (Code 1930, sections 1197, 1198, 4364).
4. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.
District attorney's presence in grand jury room when indictment is found is mere irregularity, for which indictment will not be quashed without showing of improper influence tainting it (Code 1930, section 4364).
5. JURY.
Clerk's certificate that thirteen jurors were peremptorily challenged by state held not to show that court erred in holding that only twelve were challenged; challenges being under immediate supervision of judge, who should take note thereof.
6. CRIMINAL LAW.
Objection to testimony as to deceased's dying declaration held unavailable to accused on appeal, in absence of statement by his counsel of what he proposed to prove in court below.
7. HOMICIDE. Refusal of peremptory instruction for accused in murder trial on theory that he was mentally incapacitated because of beating by deceased held not error, in view of conflicting evidence and presumption of sanity.
Accused testified that he was scared and out of his head, but not that he was rendered unconscious by beating, while state's witnesses testified that he said, immediately after beating, in reply to deceased's accusation that accused had let air out of deceased's automobile tire, that "it is a damn lie," stabbed deceased in back without warning, and disappeared.
8. CRIMINAL LAW. Instructions on murder and manslaughter held not fatally erroneous in omitting defense of mental incapacity to commit crime, in view of other instructions.
The instructions complained of defined murder and told jury to convict thereof, if defendant killed deceased with malice aforethought, regardless of other facts and circumstances, but that verdict of manslaughter might be rendered, if stabbing was done without malice, not in self-defense, and without authority of law; while instructions granted defendant required acquittal if jury had reasonable doubt as to whether he was mentally able to determine right from wrong when he struck deceased.
9. CRIMINAL LAW.
Omissions in state's instructions, supplemented by defendant's instructions, are not reversible error, where all instructions embody governing legal principles when read together, and are not in irreconcilable conflict.
APPEAL from circuit court of Covington county. HON. EDGAR M. LANE, J.
E.L. Dent, of Collins, for appellant.
For any irregularity in finding the indictment a motion to quash is proper.
Sec. 1207, Code of 1930.
The concurrence of twelve of the grand jurors shall be necessary to the finding of an indictment or making a presentment.
Sec. 1197, Code 1930.
The district attorney shall attend the deliberations of the grand jury whenever he may be required by the grand jury, shall give the necessary information as to the law governing each case, in order that the same may be presented in the manner required by law.
Sec. 4364, Code of 1930.
When the motion, supported by the affidavit, was filed it became the duty of the state to convince the court by competent proof that the spirit and letter of the law had been complied with indicting this sixteen year old boy. The motion to quash should have been sustained and the indictment quashed.
Beason v. State, 34 Miss. 602; Neal v. State of Delaware, 103 U.S. 370, 26 L.Ed. 567.
Indictments, not found by at least twelve good and lawful men are void at common law.
Barney v. State, 12 S. M. 68; 31 C.J. 584.
It is undoubtedly true that a private prosecutor's presence in the grand jury room renders the indictment void.
Collier v. State, 104 Miss. 602, 45 L.R.A. 599, 61 So. 689.
The county prosecuting attorney should not be in the room at the time the jury is deciding the case by their vote.
State v. Coulter, 104 Miss. 764, 61 So. 706.
Where the district attorney was present by request of the grand jurors while the vote was being taken constitutes a mere irregularity.
Le Barron v. State, 107 Miss. 663, 65 So. 648.
In capital cases the defendant and the state shall each be allowed twelve peremptory challenges.
Sec. 1277, Code of 1930.
In criminal cases it is held that an allowance to the state of more than its proper number of peremptory challenges is reversible error.
35 C.J. 419; State v. Dalton, 69 Miss. 611, 10 So. 578; State v. Bertrand, 119 So. 261.
It was manifest prejudicial error to deny appellant the right to prove the dying declaration of the deceased.
30 C.J. 251; Sprinkle v. State, 137 Miss. 731.
All of the courts are agreed that one, who at the time of the commission of the homicide, by reason of disease of the mind, was incapable of knowing the nature and quality of his act, or that the act was wrong is not criminally responsible.
29 C.J. 1052.
Every man is presumed to be sane, but whenever the question of sanity is raised and put in issue by such facts, proven on either side, as engender such doubt, it devolves upon the state to remove it, and to establish the sanity of the prisoner to the satisfaction of the jury, beyond all reasonable doubt arising out of all the evidence in the case.
Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269; Ford v. State, 73 Miss. 734, 19 So. 665.
An instruction for the state in a case of homicide is fatally erroneous if it ignores and removes from the consideration of the jury a valid defense supported by the evidence and insisted upon by the defendant.
Suttle v. State, 88 Miss. 177, 40 So. 552; Prine v. State, 73 Miss. 838, 19 So. 711.
Even if the instruction for the state, did submit for the consideration of the jury appellant's defenses, we do not think it cured the error in appellee's instruction. The two instructions cannot be read into each other; they cannot be reconciled. Taken together, it cannot be safely said that the two instructions consistently and without conflict laid down the governing principles of law; they were calculated to mislead the jury.
Clegg v. Johnson, 143 So. 848.
W.D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
On a motion to quash an indictment the burden is on the movant to establish his contentions.
Price v. State, 152 Miss. 625, 120 So. 751; Smith v. State, 158 Miss. 355, 128 So. 891.
An indictment will not be quashed because of the presence of the district attorney in the grand jury room while the matter was under investigation and when the indictment was voted on in the absence of a showing that the accused was prejudiced thereby.
Price v. State 152 Miss. 625, 120 So. 751.
It seems the burden was on the movant to establish the grounds of his motion as to excessive peremptory challenges. Failing to do so, it is proper to overrule the objection, particularly in view of the fact that the ruling of the court clearly indicates that he made his own investigation before ruling on the objection.
If this court should hold that the thirteenth peremptory challenge was allowed the state, it still should not constitute reversible error. Particularly in view of the fact that another trial, properly conducted, in my judgment, could only result in another conviction, on the evidence disclosed by the record in this case.
Barnett v. Dalton, 69 Miss. 611, 10 So. 578.
The record does not establish what the dying declaration was and without this evidence in the record no error can be predicated on the exclusion thereof.
Mooreman v. State, 131 Miss. 662, 95 So. 638; Reece v. State, 154 Miss. 862, 123 So. 892.
The testimony of the defendant with reference to his mental condition is not such as to engender a reasonable doubt of sanity and in the absence of such testimony, engendering a reasonable doubt of sanity, the presumption of sanity will stand and no evidence on that subject is necessary to be introduced on the part of the state.
Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269.
The testimony of the physicians, is based on hypothetical questions propounded to them and the subject-matter of these hypothetical questions is not sustained by the proof in this case.
All of the instructions in a case should be taken and considered as a whole and if, as a whole, the instructions correctly state the law applicable to the case, there would be no error in the giving of instructions.
Williams v. State, 135 So. 210.
Argued orally by E.L. Dent, for appellant, and by W.D. Conn, Jr., for the state.
On an indictment for murder, W.L. Temple, the appellant, sixteen years of age, was convicted of manslaughter in the killing of Odell Flynt. It is unnecessary to give a detailed statement of the facts. The state's evidence tended to show that a few minutes before the killing, Flynt had committed an assault and battery on the appellant, Temple, pursued him, and knocked him in a ditch, as a result of which the appellant was bruised on the head and bleeding. The difficulty happened at nighttime, and later, after it was over, Flynt, the deceased, was seen standing in front of the lights of his car, in a stooped position, looking at his hand, which he had injured in striking the appellant on the head. Many of the witnesses for the state testified that the appellant stepped into the light and stabbed Flynt in the back with his pocket knife at a time when the deceased did not see him and was not making any threat, demonstration, or overt act towards him. The wound inflicted was a stab on the left side of his back, puncturing the pleural cavity, from which wound Flynt died.
The evidence for the appellant tended to show, perhaps, self-defense, an overt act on the part of Flynt, the deceased, toward him at the time he struck the fatal blow, and that he was rendered unconscious and incapable of committing the crime because of the beating he had received a few minutes before. These theories of the evidence were embraced in the instructions for the defendant on the trial of the case.
1. It is insisted by the appellant that the court erred in not sustaining his motion to quash the indictment. This motion was based on an affidavit of the appellant that the indictment was not concurred in by twelve legal, uninterested, qualified grand jurors, and that the district attorney appeared, and was present during the deliberation of the grand jury and at the time they voted on the indictment when he was not required so to do by the grand jury. Appellant made no effort to present any evidence in support of his motion and affidavit and the state offered none, whereupon the court overruled it, and cites Beason v. State, 34 Miss. 602, Barney v. State, 12 Smedes M. 68, and other authorities to the effect that it is necessary that twelve members of the grand jury concur in the finding of an indictment. Generally, the return of an indictment into court raises the presumption that all the necessary legal requisites have been complied with. 31 C.J. 585, section 49. Section 1197, Code 1930, is a rescript of the common law, and requires that at least twelve of the jurors concur in the finding of an indictment. Section 1198, Code 1930, requires that "all indictments must be presented to the court by the foreman of the grand jury, with his name indorsed thereon, in the presence of at least twelve of such jury, including the foreman, and must be marked `filed,' and such entry be dated and signed by the clerk; and an entry on the minutes of the court of the finding or presenting of an indictment shall not be necessary or made, but the indorsement by the foreman, together with the marking, dating, and signing by the clerk shall be the legal evidence of the finding and presenting to the court of the indictment." In the case at bar, the foreman of the grand jury and the clerk of the court performed their duty as required by this statute and as shown by the indictment.
The indictment in question was marked "filed" and it was upon the movant to show contrary to the record in the case, if indeed there was any kind of evidence he could have offered in contradiction of the record. The presentment of the indictment in court in the presence of the other grand jurors implies a concurrence of the requisite number, and the statute is plain and unequivocal. The legal evidence of the concurrence of twelve or more of the grand jurors in finding and presenting the indictment is fully established by the signing thereof on the part of the foreman and the marking of it "filed" by the clerk of the court. If appellant had offered competent evidence to show that twelve grand jurors did not concur in finding the indictment and presenting the same, then the question would be presented to this court as to whether or not the statute by its terms, cut off all inquiry of this nature. The burden of proof was on the movant, and has been since 1857, when the statute quoted above in this behalf was first enacted. The affidavit, if it had been sufficient to raise the question argued here, is no proof of the facts therein alleged. The court correctly overruled the motion to quash. This applies with equal force to the allegation that the district attorney was in the grand jury room at the time this indictment was found. Appellant's affidavit did not, and could not, overturn the legal evidence in this respect.
2. It is not alleged in the affidavit that there was any improper conduct on the part of the district attorney by his presence in the grand jury room at a time the vote was taken. If appellant had established by proof his allegation, it is a mere irregularity for which the motion to quash will not be sustained in the absence of a showing of some improper influence such as would taint the indictment. See Le Barron v. State, 107 Miss. 663, 65 So. 648; State v. Coulter, 104 Miss. 764, 61 So. 706, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1142, and section 4364, Miss. Code 1930.
3. It is insisted that the court erred in granting the state thirteen peremptory challenges of jurors when, under the statute, the state was entitled to only twelve. When this objection was made, there was a difference between counsel for the state and counsel for appellant. The court said that the clerk had no record at that time, and found that the objection was not maintained in fact. There now appears in the record a certificate of the clerk to the effect that in impaneling this jury thirteen jurors were challenged, naming them. We are advised of no statute that authorizes the clerk to insert such a certificate in the record. It has no evidential value. The clerk is not required by any statute to make any minute of the peremptory challenges exercised by the parties engaged in the trial of the case for the guidance of the trial court in determining the number of peremptory challenges. It is the duty of the court to determine and control the challenges, and, on the disputed question of fact, we cannot say that the court was manifestly wrong in holding that thirteen challenges were not permitted to the state in this case. The exercise of challenges is under the immediate supervision of the judge of the court, and the duty devolves upon him to take note of the challenges. The trial court should observe its duty in this behalf; at any rate, in this case there is no complaint that the jury finally impaneled was not a fair and impartial one as provided by the constitution and the laws of this state.
4. Objection is made to the action of the court in declining to allow the witness to answer a question as to a dying declaration made by the deceased. It is a sufficient answer to this objection that we do not now know what the statement would have been, had the witness been permitted to answer the question. Counsel should have stated what he proposed to prove in the court below for information there, and for our information here. Mooreman v. State, 131 Miss. 662, 95 So. 638, and Reece v. State, 154 Miss. 862, 123 So. 892.
5. The appellant requested a peremptory instruction on the theory that he had shown that, at the time of the homicide, he was mentally incapacitated because he did not know right from wrong, due to the beating he had received at the hands of Flynt, the deceased, a short time before he was stabbed by the appellant. On this point appellant's testimony, in one place, was to the effect that he was "scared," and, at another place, he was "out of his head;" but he nowhere states that he was rendered unconscious. And the acts of the appellant, as testified to by the witnesses for the state, tended to show that he said, immediately after the beating, in reply to the accusation of Flynt, the deceased, that he (the appellant) had let the air out of his tire, "If you say that I did that, it is a damn lie;" that he, without warning, stabbed the deceased in his back; that he disappeared out of the light; and these facts, in conjunction with the presumption of law that men are sane (Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269, 21 Am. Rep. 360), are a sufficient statement that at least the evidence was in conflict, and that the appellant was not entitled to a peremptory instruction. The evidence, as a whole, did not warrant the hypothetical questions propounded to the physicians, and while the evidence of the physicians is in the record, it is entitled to little, if any, weight. Appellant was more than fourteen years of age.
6. The court granted the state an instruction defining murder and advising the jury if they believed, among other things, that the appellant killed the deceased with malice aforethought, it would be the duty of the jury to convict regardless of every other fact and circumstance in the case; and further instructed that if the jury believed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the stabbing or cutting was done without malice and not in self-defense, and without authority of law, then a verdict of manslaughter might be rendered. The contention is that these two instructions omitted his defense of lack of capacity to commit crime, and are therefore fatally erroneous. The appellant was granted several instructions fully setting forth that if the jury had a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was normal and not able mentally to determine right from wrong at the time he struck Flynt, he was entitled to an acquittal. The instructions for the appellant on this theory are very full and complete, and if read in conjunction with the instructions complained of, granted to the state, there is no conflict in them. If the jury believed that the defendant slew, with malice aforethought, they necessarily found that.
In the case of Williams v. State, 160 Miss. 485, 135 So. 210, this court announced the rule that will be adhered to as to omissions in the state's instructions supplemented in the defendant's instructions, and that where instructions both for the state and for the defendant are read together, embodying the governing principles of law, there is no reversible error. If the instructions supplement and do not materially and prejudicially conflict, they, taken as a whole, are not fatally erroneous; if considered all together, correct principles of law are embodied therein. Unless there is an irreconcilable conflict, there is no reversible error. Neither orally nor in writing can the judge speak all the law in one breath. Many cases are cited in the Williams case, supra, to sustain this position. We do not mean to approve the action of the court in granting instructions for the state in the case at bar, but simply to say that we will not reverse the case unless there appears to be an irreconcilable conflict. Counsel cites the case of Suttle v. State, 88 Miss. 177, 40 So. 552, wherein the case was reversed for the omission in the state's instruction of the defense propounded by the accused. It may be observed that in the Suttle case, the court made no mention of the instructions there granted to the appellant.
There is no merit in the other contentions as to granting or refusing instructions in this case, nor in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial.
On the whole, we might add that the complaint of counsel as to the sentence inflicted by the court in the case at bar is not one for our interference. We find no reversible error herein.
Affirmed.