Long v. State
Long v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The court erred in admitting in evidence the testimony of Lilly Lawson-, showing she told Mrs. Long as to her father’s getting his pay on purpose to go to Memphis, without proof also that the defendant had knowledge of this. The wife’s knowledge is not the husband’s knowledge.
It was error to permit the justice of the peace to attach his certificate and signature at the close of the trial. This should be done before the papers are delivered to the circuit court. Since the law makes such an examination, duly taken and certified, the exclusive evidence of the testimony in the committing trial, it is of the last importance that the material provisions of the statute should be strictly complied with. In Gilbert v. State, 78 Miss., 300 (29 South., 477); Cunning’s case, 79 Miss., 284 (30 South, 658), and Steele’s case, 76 Miss., 389 (24 South., 910), we attempted to make clear the law on this subject.
We would not, for this second error alone, reverse this case, however. But it was error to allow the examination, when certified, to be read in evidence, for the reasons that: (a) Two witnesses were examined in the committing trial, whose testimony was not taken down at all; and (b) the testimony of one witness, which was taken down in the said committing trial, although said witness was not examined as a witness in the cir
The observations of the district attorney to the effect that the defendant’s purpose was not alone to commit the crime, with which he was charged, but another, the vilest known, was, we are bound to say, highly improper. The statement could have, in this country, but one meaning, and that at once understood; and, when understood, it would almost surely inflame a jury beyond control. The appellant was on trial for burglary, and not rape.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- William Long v. State of Mississippi
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Criminal Law and Procedure. Burglary. Larceny. Husband and ' wife. Evidence. Upon the trial of an accused for breaking and entering a dwelling house and the larceny of money therein, statements made by a witness to defendant’s wife before the breaking to the effect that the owner had money in the house, is inadmissible in the absence of evidence that the statements were communicated to defendant. 2. Same. Conservator of the peace. Code 1892, 1 1463. A conservator of the peace who, as required by code 1892, $ 1463, reduces to writing the substance of the testimony delivered on a preliminary trial before him, should certify the same before delivering the writing to the circuit court, and it is error, but not necessarily reversible error, for him to be permitted to certify it after-wards during the trial of the accused in the circuit court, to be used in that trial. 3. Same. Certificate. Requisite of admissibility. Evidence. In order to render admissible in evidence the certificate of a conservator of the peace, made under code 1892, $ 1463, requiring him to reduce to writing the substance of the material testimony of all the witnesses examined on the preliminary trial, and to certify and return the proceedings and testimony so taken to the circuit court before its next term, it is essential that he should so certify and return the substance of the testimony of all the witnesses examined before him. 4. Same. Witness not exa/mined i/n circuit court. That part of the return certifying the proceedings and testimony before a conservator of the peace on a preliminary trial made under code 1892, $ 1463, which contains the testimony of a witness (alive and within the jurisdiction of the court), is not admissible in evidence on the trial in the circuit court, unless the witness has testified in that court. 5. Same. Improper argument. On a trial for burglary, remarks of the district attorney, made in argument to the jury, that “defendant’s purpose was not alone to commit the crime with which he was charged, but another, the vilest, are improper and prejudicial.