Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

78 Miss. 175

Kirby v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1900

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1900-10-15

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Patrick Henry, Judge. Kirby, the appellant, was indicted for murder, the indictment against him being' statutory in form. It was found at the December term of the court, 1899, and was drawn by the Hon. Patrick Henry, then district attorney of the circuit court district embracing Warren county. The case came on for trial at the March term of the court, 1900.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““If it had been shown that the judge, as district attorney, had heard the facts, and advised and drawn the bill, a very different ease would be before us.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Gandía v. Stubbe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2013

6 state decisions

30190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

Calhoon, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This case is presented for appellant with marked ability by counsel appointed by the court, who deserves all credit for hisunremunerated services and laborious and intelligent research, on account of which we regret we cannot concur with him. The accused had every possible point made for him in the court, below and here. Code 1892, § 919, prohibits a judge to preside where he is of kin to any party to the cause, or interested in it, or ‘ ‘ wherein he may have been of counsel. ’ ’ Does the word ‘ ‘ counsel ’ ’ include a district attorney who has had no^ further interest in the case than simply to draw the statutory indictment % This is the only question in this record worthy of consideration or insisted on. A district attorney need not be, and ought never to be, in the grand jury room, unless invited to be there by the grand jury for information “in a case in order that the same, may be presented in the manner required bylaw.” Code 1892, § 1556. He need not draw or even sign an indictment. Keithler v. State, 10 Smed. & M., 192. *179If it is duly presented in open court and marked “Filed” by the clerk, it is enough. We have no such statute as that of Texas, the decision under which is relied on by appellant. With us the district attorney “appears and prosecutes for the state ’ ’ when there is arrest made and proceedings commenced under the indictment. Because one may be the general counsel for the state or a private person cannot disqualify him from presiding in a case in which he was not actually of counsel, did not advise, and was ignorant of the facts, as we must presume in the case at bar. If it had been shown that the judge, as district attorney, had heard the facts and advised and drawn the bill, a very different case would be before us.

¶3The record shows a deliberate murder -for robbery, and no error is found in it, after the most careful examination. Execution of the sentence is set for Saturday, January 5, 1901, between 11 o’clock a.m. and I o’clock p.m., in the manner and at the place as prescribed by law.

¶4Affirmed.

/78/miss/175 · .json · Public domain