62 Miss. 410
Irvin Reed stood trial in Mississippi circuit court on a charge of assault with intent to kill and murder.1 The alleged offense involved a shooting that took place on March 14, 1884.2 Reed offered testimony from several non-expert witnesses who described their acquaintance with him and their opportunities to observe his conversation, conduct, and manners.3
After those foundational statements, the trial court excluded the witnesses' opinions regarding Reed's sanity or insanity. The defense also presented a physician who had graduated in medicine and was a practicing doctor.4 This physician had no prior knowledge of Reed but had sat through the entire trial and heard all the evidence presented.5
The physician was asked what his opinion was, based upon the testimony adduced at trial, as to the sanity or insanity of the defendant Irvin Reed at or before the alleged shooting.6 Separately, Reed sought to introduce evidence that the man alleged to be the victim had engaged in or proposed carnal intercourse with Reed's wife on the night before the shooting and on previous occasions.7 The district attorney objected to this line of testimony.8
The trial court sustained the objection to the evidence concerning the victim's conduct with Reed's wife.9 Reed was convicted following the trial court's rulings on these evidentiary matters.10 The case reached the Supreme Court of Mississippi, which reversed the judgment.11
Whether a non-expert witness who has had opportunities of knowing and observing the conversation, conduct, and manners of a person whose sanity is in question may depose to his opinion or belief as to the sanity or insanity of such person?12
A non-expert witness who has had opportunities of knowing and observing the conversation, conduct, and manners of a person whose sanity is in question may depose, not only to particular facts, but to his opinion or belief, formed from such actual observation, as to the sanity or insanity of such person.13
Yes. Irvin Reed offered testimony from several non-expert witnesses who described their acquaintance with him and their opportunities to observe his conversation, conduct, and manners.14 After those foundational statements the trial court excluded the witnesses' opinions regarding Reed's sanity or insanity.15 The witnesses had supplied the required foundation of actual observation from which their opinions on sanity could properly be formed.16
The trial court erred in excluding the non-expert opinions on Reed's sanity or insanity.17
Whether a physician, who knew nothing of the defendant but was present and heard all the evidence at the trial, may express an opinion on the sanity or insanity of the defendant when it is not shown that the physician is conversant with insanity or has made the subject of mental disease a study?18
It was not competent for the physician introduced as an expert, who knew nothing of the appellant, but was present and heard all the evidence at the trial, to express his opinion on the question propounded to him as to the sanity or insanity of the appellant, for the reason, that it was not shown that the witness was an expert on that subject.19
No. The physician was a graduate in medicine and a practicing physician.20 The record did not show that he was conversant with insanity in any of its forms, or that he had ever had the care and superintendence of insane persons, or that he had ever made the subject of mental disease a study. The physician had no prior knowledge of Reed and therefore could not qualify as an expert on the issue of sanity.21
The trial court correctly excluded the physician's opinion on Reed's sanity or insanity.22
Whether the form of a question to an expert witness, asking for an opinion based upon the testimony adduced at trial as to the sanity or insanity of the defendant at or before the alleged shooting, is proper?23
The form of the question propounded to this witness is objectionable because it involved the determination of the truth of the facts deposed to by the other witnesses as well as the scientific conclusion to be drawn from those facts.24
No. The question asked the physician what his opinion was based upon the testimony adduced at trial as to the sanity or insanity of the defendant Irvin Reed at or before the alleged shooting on the fourteenth day of March eighteen eighty-four.25 That form improperly required the witness to determine the truth of disputed facts as well as to draw a scientific conclusion from them.26
The form of the question to the physician was improper and the trial court did not err in sustaining the objection to it.27
Whether testimony that the man upon whom the offense was alleged to have been committed had, or made proposals to have, carnal intercourse with the defendant's wife on the night before the shooting and previous to that night is admissible in a trial for assault with intent to kill and murder?28
The court properly sustained the objection made by the district attorney to the testimony offered by the appellant in regard to the man upon whom the offense charged was alleged to have been committed having or making proposals to have carnal intercourse with his wife on the night before the shooting occurred and previous to that night.29
No. Reed sought to introduce evidence that the alleged victim had engaged in or proposed carnal intercourse with Reed's wife on the night before the shooting and on previous occasions.30 Assault with intent to kill and murder does not admit of broader grounds of defense than murder.31 The evidence would not have been admissible even on a murder charge because sufficient time had elapsed for passion to cool.32 The shooting therefore could not be reduced to manslaughter on the ground of sudden provocation.33
The trial court correctly sustained the objection and excluded the testimony concerning the alleged victim's conduct with Reed's wife.34