Ball v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court
Ball v. State, 67 Miss. 358 (Miss. 1889)
Campbell

Ball v. State

Opinion of the Court

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Ball was properly denied the benefit of his former conviction for intoxication and profanity, both because autrefois convict must be pleaded specially, and because the evidence shows clearly that he was guilty of disturbing religious worship at the China Grove camp-meeting by other modes than by being drunk and profane, and, therefore, there was a want of identity of the two charges. Badon was rightly convicted with Ball, if he participated in the nocturnal disturbance in which Ball and many others appear to have been engaged; and the jury thought he was, and we are not able to say that they did not have sufficient evidence on which to reach this conclusion. He failed to furnish any explanation of his being out at 2 o’clock A.M., and in bad company. The jury doubtless concluded that he was one of the crowd, composed of Ball and others, who made night hideous, and terrified men, women and children by their disgraceful conduct, in firing pistols about the camp-ground for hours, on that Saturday night and Sunday morning.

We agree with the counsel for the appellants in the proposition, that two persons cannot be convicted of distinct and independent offenses, upon an indictment which charges an offense as committed jointly. In order to convict both, a joint offense must be proved. Bishop on Cr. Law, § 802; Regina v. Dovey & Gray, 2 E. Law & Eq. R. 532.

It may be that Strawhern et al. v. State, 37 Miss. 422, has been misinterpreted as sustaining the right to indict several persons for distinct offenses, and to convict such of them as may be proved severally guilty. It is not authority for a propositen so subversive of the rights of persons accused of crimes, as that would be. The correct doctrine on this subject is announced in Elliott v. State, 26 Ala. 78, and authorities cited above.

*363The ground on which we sustain the conviction here, is that the evidence warrants a verdict of guilty as to both defendants of a joint disturbance of religious worship, by common participation in the boisterous performance proved.

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
J. L. Ball v. State
Cited By
5 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
1. Criminal Law. . Former conviction; specially pleaded. Defense of former conviction must be pleaded specially. 2. Same. Former conviction; plea. Identity of offense. A conviction on an indictment charging drunkenness and swearing at a public place, in the presence of two or more persons, is no bar to a subsequent indictment for disturbing religious worship, though at the same time and place, when the evidence shows that the worship was disturbed by other means than being drunk and profane. Smith v. The State, ante, 116. 3. Same. Disturbing religious worship. Verdict. Sufficiency of evidence. Where several are jointly charged with disturbing religious worship at a camp-meeting, and the evidence shows cursing, shooting, and other disturbances at night, of which some' of the defendants are unquestionably guilty, and one of the defendants is arrested at 2 o’clock at night, having a pistol in his possession, and, being in company at the time with one of the parties causing disturbance, fails to explain his being out at that hour in such company, and there are other circumstances indicating his participation in the disturbances, a verdict convicting him will not be disturbed. 4.Same. Joint offense. Indictment. Two persons cannot be convicted of distinct and independent offenses upon an indictment charging a joint offense. Strawhern v. The Slate, 37 Miss. 422, is not an authority for the contrary of this. The ground upon which the conviction here is sustained is that the evidence warrants a verdict of guilty as to both defendants, a common participation in the unlawful disturbance.