Finklea v. State
Finklea v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The testimony of the witness, Sennett, as to the conversation between him and the defendant about the defendant’s wife was ■clearly incompetent in any view. The only effect it could have was to have inflamed the jury against the defendant. We think, ■also, that it was very improper to have introduced the wife of the defendant as a witness against him. She was, of course, manifestly incompetent, and her introduction, under the circumstances of the case, may have had a damaging effect on the jury.
We, however, do not reverse the case for this; but the first error is fatal, and for that reason the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. Raines v. State, 81 Miss. 489, 33 South. 19; Thompson v. State, 84 Miss. 758, 36 South. 389.
Reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Frank Finklea v. State of Mississippi
- Cited By
- 10 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Criminal Law and Peoceduke. Evidence. Burglary. In a prosecution for burglary, a conversation between a witness and the accused wherein the defendant was informed that he was charged with the crime and that his wife was responsible for the charge is inadmissible in evidence. 2, Same. Same. Ill feeling between husband and wife. In a criminal case evidence of ill will between the accused and his wife is inadmissible. S. Same. Witnesses. Husband and wife. State should not call defendant’s wife. In a criminal case it is improper for the state to call the wife of the defendant as a witness, and compel him in the presence of the jury to object to her as being incompetent.