Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

124 Miss. 141

Stribling v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1920

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1920-10-15

Hon. E. D. Dinkins, Judge. Jesse Stribling was convicted of feloniously manufacturing and distilling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals. The first error of which we complain was the admission by the court over the objection of the defendant of the testimony of Dr. Williams, that Mr. Powers when arrested stated that Stribling could tell him or show him where the still was, when defendant denied that he could do so. This testimony was clearly incompetent.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1934

2 state decisions

Relies on Garner v. State · Brown v. State · Johnson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1920-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

W. II. 'Cook,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The appellant, defendant below, was jointly indicted with one J. M. Powers “for feloniously manufacturing and distilling intoxicating liquors.” A severance was granted and appellant ivas convicted, and from the judgment sentencing him to confinement in the penitentiary for one year, this appeal ivas prosecuted.

¶3It is earnestly insisted that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, and that the peremptory instruction requested by defendant should have been granted. Without detailing any of the evidence, it is sufficient to say that the peremptory instruction was prop-' erly refused.

¶4The court granted an instruction for the state which reads as follows:

“The court instructs the jury for the state that, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant aided, assisted, abetted, or knowingly consented to the making and distilling of intoxicating liquors, it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of guilty as charged.”

¶5This instruction is erroneous. A person who is present, consenting to the commission of an offense, and who aids, abets, or encourages its commission, is guilty as a principal, but this instruction authorizes the conviction of the defendant if he merely consented to the manufacture of the intoxicating liquor. This is not the.laxv, and the error in this instruction was not cured by any instruction granted the defendant.

¶6Over the objection of appellant, Dr. Williams, the sheriff was permitted to testify that, after appellant and Powers, his codefe.ndant, were arrested, Powers stated that the appellant knew where the still was located and could point it out to the sheriff, but appellant at once denied *144all knowledge of the location of the still. The declaration or statement of the codefendant, Powers, which was at the time denied by defendant, was inadmissible. Brown v. State, 78 Miss. 637, 29 So. 519, 84 Am. St. Rep. 641; Johnson v. State, 90 Miss. 317, 43 So. 435; Garner v. State, 120 Miss. 744, 83 So. 83.

¶7•For the errors herein indicated, this cause is reversed and remanded.

¶8Reversed and remanded.

/124/miss/141 · .json · Public domain