McDowell v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
FROM tbe circuit court of Coahoma county. Hon. George Winston, Judge. The opinion sufficiently shows the point decided. Ownership of the property stolen must be proved as laid in the indictment. If laid in several, proof of ownership in one is insufficient. 2 Bish. Cr. Pro. § 723; Murphy v. State, 24 Miss. 594. The property was in the possession of Weathersby, and he owned at least a half interest in it.
Read the full summary
FROM tbe circuit court of Coahoma county. Hon. George Winston, Judge. The opinion sufficiently shows the point decided. Ownership of the property stolen must be proved as laid in the indictment. If laid in several, proof of ownership in one is insufficient. 2 Bish. Cr. Pro. § 723; Murphy v. State, 24 Miss. 594. The property was in the possession of Weathersby, and he owned at least a half interest in it. It was right to lay ownership in him. 2 Buss, on Cr. 160. Should appellant be again indicted, he could plead autre fois convict.
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.
The judgment in this cause must be reversed because of the variance between the averment in the indictment and the evidence in relation to the ownership of the property stolen. There is conflict between the state’s witnesses as to whether the cotton stolen belonged to Weathersby (in whom, the property is laid in the indictment) or to Weathersby and one Lowe, as joint owners.
The 3d and 4th instructions for the state informed the jury that it might convict if the evidence showed that the defendant stole the cotton and that Weathersby owned or had an undivided interest therein. This was error.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. TrimmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1805
- Brown v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hitt v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1953
- State v. RathboneIdaho Supreme Court · 1901
- Wright v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1922
- Thomas v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1912