Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Miss. 142

Ingram v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1884

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1884-10-15

Hon. S. H. Terral, Judge. Calvin Ingram was indicted for the murder of Jack Ingram. The killing was not denied by the accused. It was witnessed by the wife and little son of deceased and the wife of the accused. The first two named testified for the State and the latter for the defendant, who also testified. The evidence as to the circumstances attending the killing was broadly conflicting. For the State the court gave, among others, the following instructions : “ 3.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The sixth instruction for the State told the jury that the defendant must have been in actual danger at the time of the killing to justify him in shooting for his own defense. It is true that another and distinct clause of the instruction qualifies the foregoing by embracing the proposition of the sufficiency of apparent danger at the time to justify action in defense, but it is by no means clear that the instruction as a whole was properly understood, and that it did not do harm. The conflicting evidence as to the circumstances of the killing made it especially important that no error should be committed in instructing the jury. It is matter of much regret that we feel compelled so often to reverse the judgments in criminal cases, because of serious errors which could easily be avoided. When we see that the jury has been misdirected, and may have been misled thereby, our duty is to grant a new trial. If fewer instructions were given and greater care was observed in framing them, it would be most favorable to the interest of the State in the administration of the criminal laws. In many cases it would be wise to give no instructions at all for the State, and in none is it prudent to give many. By this course convictions would be just as numerous and reversals would be rare. ( 62 Miss. at 144-45 )”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Robinson v. State

Relies on Hawthorne v. State · Harris v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1984

8 state decisions

3018841890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Campbell, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The third instruction for the State is subject to one of the grounds-of objection for which the fifth instruction for the State in Hawthorne v. The State, 58 Miss. 778, was condemned, i. e., it makes it incumbent on the defendant to produce in evidence circumstances of alleviation, excuse, or justification to the satisfaction of the jury. An instruction very much like this was approved in Harris v. The State, 47 Miss. 318, but we, nevertheless, disapprove it.

¶3The sixth instruction for the State told the jury that the defendant must have been in actual danger at the time of the killing to justify him in shooting for his own defense. It is true that another and distinct clause of the instruction qualifies the foregoing by embracing the proposition of the sufficiency of apparent danger at the time to justify action in defense, but it is by no means clear that *145the instruction as a whole was properly understood, and that it did not do harm.

¶4The conflicting evidence as to the circumstances of the killing made it especially important that no error should be committed in instructing the jury.

¶5It is matter of much regret that we feel compelled so often to reverse the judgments in criminal cases, because of serious errors which could easily be avoided. When we see that the jury has been misdirected, and may have been misled thereby, our duty is to grant a new trial. If fewer instructions were given and greater care was observed in framing them, it would be most favorable to the interest of the State in the administration of the criminal laws. In many cases it would be wise to give no instructions at all for the State, and in none is it prudent to give many. By this course convictions would be just as numerous and reversals would be rare.

¶6Judgment reversed.

/62/miss/142 · .json · Public domain