Baird v. State

■SMITH, CL X, Smith, C. 3.,

di a elivered the .opinion of elivered the opinion of ae court, e court.

his is an appeal from a conviction of murder; ms ,is an. appeal from a coiwiction or murder4 ant ;s defense m me court pelow being ínsanit ». ant’s ctefense in ,the,court below* being’ insanity,

as sanity con-fie evidence as*to the .sanity of the appellant con-jcf principady of me testimony o:; nonexpert witnesses id praiicipa: ly or the testimony p: nonexpert witnesses ir-whoseiobservation me appelant Iraq come, >sever .whose observation the ,appellaiit ha,d come., Sev-witnesses, who ,iad ample1 opportunity tor ohserv-,witnesses;.who,nad ample opportunity tor observing me conduét of tie appellant/were permitted, over iig the cpncLuct of. me appellant, were -permitted;-over it appellant ,s omection/ to state that ill their opinion appellant’s objection, .to - *- Maní _ „„ pellanu lection to objection ion accompanied accompanied it was1 pased-it-.was i witness witness that a py a statement was Sane at r_ state ;pe time o: it in their-.opimon _ _ ,._ ;.ie homicide, tche was sane at the time oh the homicide. The us testimony was mat this opinion was not Wi ly.was.tnat thi-s. opinion was eiit of tie specific facts on wluc, or the specific facts on wlucf me opim - - ins testimgm — a statemel, S t £i "t G 1TG rdinarify, tHe”opiíIfoiT"of'"á”hóñexpert Jrdinamy, the opinion or a nonexpert a person is uhsane should le accompamec nson is ípsape ghoulq^- le 1acgo-mpanie ;iie specif tacts on msec ,. ^oco-mpa .. _x .ucli if isdm — fife hi statement, of the spocihc, facts, on which it is based, yviBut if me witness testifies that the person is sane, no íí if + h A TmfnrtOC. f AC+lflAr. thot r h A 1AAVC.A11 lev COTIA' HA j-«it it the .witness testihes that tlie Person, is sane,,no such necessity exists, for m mat case le subject of’the such necessity exists, form mat, case the*sumeet of-,tiie testimony pas given’no manifestations of eccentricities testimony has given no manifestations of -eceentricitias whicp usually mart the conduct of £p.e mmg dp.seasec|, wpicp us which usuf ~,nd only t íe conduct marh tlie* conduct __ absence of such manifestations conto and oiuVotie ." 3 Joes on evidence (2d Ed.) 2337; 22 C. J. 607 .

Aftdr me close o submitted to tlie jury," counse. íe evidence, m evidence, ~. BlF1wase re^ise^ ^rmission .jut ., ,or at was Tore the case was eifanf requested, iellant requested, ice ail expert on but was refused; Permission-to iiitro,üucq -an expert .on msamfy, who woWclpave testified mat m pis opimon me msamfyhwho would nave testified that m,his-qfkniopnthe appeiram was insane at the time of me homic±de- rWBls appellant was, insane at the-timen of me homicide. *l,his evidence should pave peen introduced as a part of me evidence should have been introduced as a part of the comiso! for af - m intro1 *551 ^ssgg OffiSteii-h, ©©©©O© tátetái-ji-á yy?®5B ssh ñg, . Jy^gf c-hris>CPCPCP ^og §§gg^ tri^ Mtrj MGO- „g g i-¿i-íc_ _ ®^8° ®® © l“&-J Hte teS5 P

. ii§g§^§¡H B&f-'t-'SS OOmro°° VVitePPppSin^lte - - £223$° fey HHgRppT^HgSo® ^ . .. . _. PwyCDC^frtjn ^H¿ sgJappEff&wkey; oo^üccp^ O Off pq c5<Mri rihl HjT f> j! 33PPÍ .ttef-i-2 2™ Kro© h; 9,-M¡e Pppfe 2® ®k° ^© • .5GCQ CP CPmrrte £3e-hr-£D CP*“á Cfqjc^cfóp^SS'

SK3PE ... Cdíte Tima®® . erf Ote #-£-■ “ BgoSpp SSSs PteteGQQpO0 OCD §Kgs ssss« bb2§®®^ RgRP CPCPte teC is&a ótxb©5© ™¡-> W3 ^ 'P+Z7Í_v_/P CP

Fte ®p prrrp, °£?ek! softer qSK^Tk. k ir+irie^r^5r«T3 (Jackson v. State, 109 Miss. 622 , 68 So. 917 ), and moreover was harmless. (House v. State, 121 Miss. 436 , 83 So. 611 ). Pool, '. ÍÜLSBBtete

_§& ■ OCtJ PH i-j ^ fT?f?iD©l P PPíS^tej O 'te teiv! i-f0 fe©i§ |íp^ v* ste te» M ..

COTO ]xfx