TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Warfield v. State

Elmore Warfield v. State of Mississippi

Warfield v. State, 50 So. 561 (Miss. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Mississippi Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1909
Judges
Whittteld
Citations
50 So. 56196 Miss. 170
Syllabus
CRIMINAL Law and Procedure. Murder. Trial. Absence of defendant.. The absence of the defendant, on trial for murder, during a part of' the time the jury was being impaneled, is fatal error.
Summary
EboM the circuit court of Warren county. HoN. JohN N. Bush, Judge. Warfield, the appellant, was indicted and tried for the murder of his wife, was convicted, sentenced to the penitentiary for life, and appealed to the supreme court. ■The opinion of the court sufficiently states the facts. The-affidavit of Maganos, read on the hearing of appellant’s motion, for a new trial, referred to in the opinion, affirms that the affiant, having been summoned as a special venire-man, was present in court (although not impaneled on the jury) during the trial of" appellant, and that at one stage of the trial, when the court was-asking the jurors in the box whether or not they had been members of the grand jury which indicted the prisoner, the prisoner-was not in the court room or in the presence of the court. Tbe judgment of tbe court below was by tbe supreme court affirmed, no written opinion being delivered, but, on suggestion of error tbe case was again considered, and tbe affirmance set aside as shown in tbe opinion. Appellant was convicted of murder. Being tried on a capital charge, be was entitled to be protected in all of bis legal' rights. Being an ignorant negro, tbe constitutional requirement that be be given a fair trial applies with possibly more force than if be were an intelligent, able, and inf! uential white man. As shown by the affidavit of a reputable person appellant was not in the court room when the jury was being impaneled. This constitutes reversible error. Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774, 47 South. 554; Rolls v. State, 52 Miss. 391. Appellant was convicted of tbe atrocious murder of bis wife, was ably represented in the court below, and may be thankful that be was sentenced to life imprisonment instead of to be banged. Whether bis absence from tbe court room, when the jury was being impaneled, constitutes reversible error is respectfully referred to this court for its determination.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Whittteld

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Whittteld, 0. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is shown by tbe affidavit of Maganos that tbe defendant was out of tbe court room during a part of tbe time tbe petit-jury was being inipaneled. Tbe district attorney did not see proper to introduce any counter affidavit, nor was there cross-examination of the witness Maganos. It, therefore, on this record, remains true that the defendant was not in tbe courtroom during a part of the very important proceeding of impaneling tbe jury. Under the authority of Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774 , 47 South. 554 , 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 509, and various other authorities cited therein, this was fatal error.

*172 Wherefore the suggestion of error is sustained, the former judgment of affirmance vacated and set aside, and the judgment •of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1911: 11913: 11915: 11918: 11919: 11920: 11934: 11935: 11957: 11961: 11972: 119112026peak 1911 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stokes v. State128 So. 2d 341 (Miss. 1961)
  2. Myers v. State268 So. 2d 353 (Miss. 1972)
  3. Thomas v. State78 So. 147 (Miss. 1918)
  4. State v. Hunt189 P. 1111 (N.M. 1920)
  5. State v. Aikers51 P.2d 1052 (Utah 1935)
  6. Ford v. State155 So. 220 (Miss. 1934)

Most recent

  1. Myers v. State268 So. 2d 353 (Miss. 1972)
  2. Stokes v. State128 So. 2d 341 (Miss. 1961)
  3. Brister v. State97 So. 2d 654 (Miss. 1957)
  4. State v. Aikers51 P.2d 1052 (Utah 1935)
  5. Ford v. State155 So. 220 (Miss. 1934)
  6. State v. Hunt189 P. 1111 (N.M. 1920)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Sherrod v. State, 47 So. 554 (Miss. 1908) 28

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list