appellant also assigns error in Mississippi

1982This question has been answered contrary to appellant’s contention in Wilson v. State, 395 So.2d 957 (Miss.1981); Diddlemeyer v. State, 398 So.2d 1343 (Miss.1981), and most recently in Adams v. State, 410 So.2d 1332 (Miss.1982).

1982This question has been answered contrary to appellant’s contention in Wilson v. State, 395 So.2d 957 (Miss.1981); Diddlemeyer v. State, 398 So.2d 1343 (Miss.1981), and most recently in Adams v. State, 410 So.2d 1332 (Miss.1982).

1982This question has been answered contrary to appellant’s contention in Wilson v. State, 395 So.2d 957 (Miss.1981); Diddlemeyer v. State, 398 So.2d 1343 (Miss.1981), and most recently in Adams v. State, 410 So.2d 1332 (Miss.1982).

1975We need only to point out that this procedure has been detailed at great length in Stevens v. State, 228 So.2d 888 (Miss. 1969) and Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671 (Miss. 1966), and must be strictly followed.

1975We need only to point out that this procedure has been detailed at great length in Stevens v. State, 228 So.2d 888 (Miss. 1969) and Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671 (Miss. 1966), and must be strictly followed.

1958Unless the state has proved the said charge beyond all reasonable doubt, the jury will find the defendant not guilty.” This instruction was properly refused for the reason that it is not supported by the evidence and for the further reason the instruction is contrary to the provisions of the statute, supra. Wages v. State, 210 Miss. 187 , 49 So. 2d 246 .

1958Unless the state has proved the said charge beyond all reasonable doubt, the jury will find the defendant not guilty.” This instruction was properly refused for the reason that it is not supported by the evidence and for the further reason the instruction is contrary to the provisions of the statute, supra. Wages v. State, 210 Miss. 187 , 49 So. 2d 246 .

1957McCormick v. McCormick, 40 Miss. 760 ; Griffin v. Lancaster, 59 Miss. 340 ; Vaughn v. Huff, 99 Miss. 110 , 54 So. 837 .” In the case of Cook v. Waldrop, 160 Miss. 862 (873), 133 So. 894 , we cited Ainsworth v. Smith, supra, and said: “The appellant also assigns as error the action of the court in directing a verdict for all the appellees except the sheriff Waldrop.

1957McCormick v. McCormick, 40 Miss. 760 ; Griffin v. Lancaster, 59 Miss. 340 ; Vaughn v. Huff, 99 Miss. 110 , 54 So. 837 .” In the case of Cook v. Waldrop, 160 Miss. 862 (873), 133 So. 894 , we cited Ainsworth v. Smith, supra, and said: “The appellant also assigns as error the action of the court in directing a verdict for all the appellees except the sheriff Waldrop.

1957McCormick v. McCormick, 40 Miss. 760 ; Griffin v. Lancaster, 59 Miss. 340 ; Vaughn v. Huff, 99 Miss. 110 , 54 So. 837 .” In the case of Cook v. Waldrop, 160 Miss. 862 (873), 133 So. 894 , we cited Ainsworth v. Smith, supra, and said: “The appellant also assigns as error the action of the court in directing a verdict for all the appellees except the sheriff Waldrop.

1957McCormick v. McCormick, 40 Miss. 760 ; Griffin v. Lancaster, 59 Miss. 340 ; Vaughn v. Huff, 99 Miss. 110 , 54 So. 837 .” In the case of Cook v. Waldrop, 160 Miss. 862 (873), 133 So. 894 , we cited Ainsworth v. Smith, supra, and said: “The appellant also assigns as error the action of the court in directing a verdict for all the appellees except the sheriff Waldrop.

1957McCormick v. McCormick, 40 Miss. 760 ; Griffin v. Lancaster, 59 Miss. 340 ; Vaughn v. Huff, 99 Miss. 110 , 54 So. 837 .” In the case of Cook v. Waldrop, 160 Miss. 862 (873), 133 So. 894 , we cited Ainsworth v. Smith, supra, and said: “The appellant also assigns as error the action of the court in directing a verdict for all the appellees except the sheriff Waldrop.

1957McCormick v. McCormick, 40 Miss. 760 ; Griffin v. Lancaster, 59 Miss. 340 ; Vaughn v. Huff, 99 Miss. 110 , 54 So. 837 .” In the case of Cook v. Waldrop, 160 Miss. 862 (873), 133 So. 894 , we cited Ainsworth v. Smith, supra, and said: “The appellant also assigns as error the action of the court in directing a verdict for all the appellees except the sheriff Waldrop.

1953In the case of Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U.S. 463 , 92 L.Ed. 76 , the Supreme Court of the United States, in its opinion, said in part: "Sixty-seven years ago this Court held that state exclusion of Negroes from grand and petit juries solely because of their race denied Negro defendants in criminal cases the equal protection of the laws required by the Fourteenth Amendment." The opinion also said: "When a jury selection plan, whatever it is, operates in such way as always to result in the complete and long-continued exclusion of any representative at all from a large group of Negroes, or any

1953In the case of Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U.S. 463 , 92 L.Ed. 76 , the Supreme Court of the United States, in its opinion, said in part: "Sixty-seven years ago this Court held that state exclusion of Negroes from grand and petit juries solely because of their race denied Negro defendants in criminal cases the equal protection of the laws required by the Fourteenth Amendment." The opinion also said: "When a jury selection plan, whatever it is, operates in such way as always to result in the complete and long-continued exclusion of any representative at all from a large group of Negroes, or any

1931In Walker v. State, supra, the court said: “While section 1923, Code 1906 (now section 1532, Code 1930), expressly provides that the answers of a witness who is being examined in reference to his conviction of crime may be contradicted and his conviction established by other evidence, this does not permit the details of the crime to be shown, and such examination should be held within the limits necessary to call attention to and identify the conviction being inquired about.” The appellant also assigns as error the refusal of the following instruction: “The court instructs the jury for defenda

1931In McDaniel v. State, 8 Smedes & M. 401 , 47 Am.