Richardson v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
Richardson v. State, 79 Miss. 289 (Miss. 1901)
Calhoon
Richardson v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The indictment is good enough. It charges with sufficient certainty that the injury was caused by the discharge of the weapon. The word ‘ ‘ necessary ’ ’ before the word ‘ ‘ self-defense ” is not essential, since the statute (code § 969) does not require it. The previous acquittal on an indictment for an assault and battery with intent to kill and murder is no bar to this indictment for pointing a gun, etc. Granted that it would have been a bar if the previous acquittal had been on a charge of murder or manslaughter, this would have been because of the express provision of code, § 969, and it does not apply to assault and battery.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Westley Richardson v. State of Mississippi
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. CRIMINAL Law. Indictment. Code 1892, $ 969. Pointing, etc., gitn. An indictment under code 1892, § 969, making- it a crime to point or aim a firearm at another intentionally, or to discharge the same so pointed or aimed, except in self-defense, or in the lawful discharge of official duty, need not, in negativing the exception of self-defense, use the word “necessary” before the words “self-defense. ” 2. Same. Injury. Certainty. An indictment under the statute charging that the defendant pointed a pistol at another (named), and “did then and there, while so intentionally pointing said pistol, willfully and feloniously discharge the same and injured” such other person, sufficiently charges that the injury was caused by the discharge of the weapon. 3. Same. Assault and battery with intent to kill Autrefois acquit. An acquittal under an indictment for an assault and battery with intent to kill and murder, predicated of the same acts, is not a bar to a prosecution under said statute.