Williams v. State

May 1, 1939
No. 33585.
Versions:188 So. 316
185 Miss. 449
1939 Miss. LEXIS 167
*452 Smith, O'. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is аn appeal from a death sentence for murder. The-evidence is not in disрute, and discloses a malicious homicide, unless the appellant is insane within the legal definition thereof.

The appellant did not testify, and offered only evidеnce of good reputation for peace and violence, and оf his mental capacity. This evidence discloses that he was engaged in farming, attended to his business affairs in the usual and ordinary way, and some conduct ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍which the witnessеs seemed to think evidenced an unbalanced mind. He complains of the exсlusion of evidence and of the granting to the state and of the refusing to him of cеrtain instructions. The evidence said to have been wrongfully excluded is as follows:

1. At times “he would act stranger than he would at other times.” This evidence, while of little value, might well have been admitted but its exclusion, on this record, is not reversible error.

2. He hаd the reputation of being a “feeble-minded man,” and was generally known as “crаzy Grant.” No error was committed ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍in excluding this evidence for insanity is not provable by rеputation therefor. 2 Wig-more, Ev., (2d), sec. 1621.

3. He did not act like a man with “good sense.” The issue was not whether the appellant acted with “good sense” but whether or nоt he was in fact insane when the homicide was committed, as to which this evidencе would have proven nothing.

4. “Well, I just figured Grant was crazy.” The witness who gave this evidence had stated the conduct of the appellant on which this opinion was basеd, consequently, it should have been admitted. This error, however, was cured ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍for immediаtely thereafter the witness was asked, “Well, how did he act?1” To which he replied, “He acted crazy.” While this evidence was also objected to, there was nо ruling on the objection and it was not excluded.

*453 No error appears in the twо instructions granted the state. One of which is as follows: ‘£ The court charges the jury for the state that mere queerness or unusual conduct is not alone any defense to crime, unless the mind of the party committing the crime, if any, is so affected, at the time of the commission, thereof, that the power to distinguish between moral right and wrong is dеstroyed; and even if one he abnormal or queer, still, if he be able to apрreciate the difference between moral right and wrong as to the partiсular act, if any, then the law holds him responsible for that act regardless of such above abnormality or queerness, if any. ’ ’

The appellant was refused an instruction charging the jury “that evidence of good character may of itself creаte a reasonable doubt where otherwise no such doubt would exist, ” and committed no error in so doing. ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍“Evidence of a defendant’s good character should go to the jury like evidence of any other fact, and should he left to the jury without intimatiоn from the court touching its value.” Anderson v. State, 97 Miss. 658, 53 So. 393. This case has been several timеs approved by this court, as will appear from Harris v. State, 175 Miss. 1, 166 So. 392. He was also rеfused an instruction: “that if you believe from the evidence in this case that the acts of Grant Williams, in shooting the deceased, Annie Price, was caused by mental disease or unsoundness which dethroned his reason and judgment with respect to that act which destroyed his power rationally to comprehend ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍the nature and consеquence of that act, and which overpowering his will irresistibly forced him to its commissiоn, then he is not legally answerable therefor.” If we assume, as we will for the purpose of the argument only, that this was a correct instruction (in which connection sеe Eatman v. State, 169 Miss. 295, 153 So. 381; Smith v. State, 95 Miss. 786, 49 So. 945, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.), 461, Ann. Cas. 1912A 23), no reversible error was committed in refusing it. Leaving out of view the state’s instruction which fully covered the insanity issue, the court *454 charged the jury for thе appellant as follows: “if, upon the whole evidence, the jury find that the defеndant, at the time of committing the act, was not of sound mind, and was unconscious that hе was committing a. crime, they should acquit him. ’ ’ A more liberal instruction than was probably required.

Affirmed.

Sentenced to be executed on Thursday, the 15th day of June, 1939.