Bell v. State, 50170
| Decision Date | 09 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 50170,50170 |
| Parties | Charles S. BELL v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Paul Richard Lambert, Hattiesburg, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Wayne Snuggs, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.
Charles S. Bell appeals from a conviction of capital murder and life sentence by the Circuit Court of Forrest County.
At approximately eight o'clock on the evening of May 29, 1976, Charles S. Bell entered a Mr. Quik store in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Michael Romanoff, the store manager, was behind the cash register and John Thomas, an employee, was in the kitchen. Thomas testified for the state that he heard the front door of the store and one of the cooler doors open and close. He also heard a voice command, "Open the cash register," whereupon he entered the public portion of the store and saw Bell pointing a pistol at Romanoff. When his presence was observed by Bell, he was directed to put up his hands. Bell reiterated his demand of Romanoff and fired a shot by his head. When the manager failed to respond a third time, Thomas asked Romanoff what he should do. Romanoff replied that he could hit the floor and seized a carton of beer and threw it at Bell who reacted by shooting Romanoff and fleeing the scene. Romanoff died shortly afterward from three bullet wounds. Bell was later identified by Thomas in a lineup in St. Louis, Missouri, where he had been apprehended on other charges.
The court permitted an amendment of the indictment prior to trial so that it might cite Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-19(2)(e) (Supp.1977) upon which the charge of capital murder was based and thereafter overruled defendant's motion to quash the indictment on the grounds the statute cited was unconstitutional.
Bell testified in his own behalf during the trial, stating he was nineteen years of age when the crime occurred and admitting previous convictions of two armed robberies, aggravated assault and second degree burglary. After considering the evidence, the jury returned a guilty verdict of capital murder, but was unable to agree on the sentence after hearing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the separate sentencing proceeding. Therefore the court sentenced Bell to life imprisonment and then overruled a motion for a new trial.
The appellant first complains the indictment should have been quashed because it failed to cite and define the offense charged. The indictment as initially written and without its formal parts charged: " . . . did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, kill and murder Michael Romanoff, a human being, while in the commission of the crime of armed robbery, or in an attempt to commit armed robbery." It was amended prior to trial so as to charge: " . . . did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, kill and murder Michael Romanoff, a human being, while in the commission of the crime of armed robbery, or in an attempt to commit armed robbery, in violation of Section 97-3-19 (2)(e) of the Mississippi Code of 1972, as Amended, . . ." (Emphasis added.) It thus satisfies Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-17-20 (1972) which requires the indictment of any crime punishable by death to cite the section and subsection of the code defining the offense alleged to have been committed. See Varnado v. State, 338 So.2d 1239 (Miss.1976). As the amended indictment correctly cites the statute defining capital murder when homicide occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery, we conclude this assignment of error is without merit.
Bell next argues the indictment should have been quashed because his true age was not established during the proceedings against him thereby violating his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. He now contends he was actually seventeen years of age at the time of the crime and therefore was subject to the jurisdiction of the youth court. Although we follow the established principle that objections and exceptions not jurisdictional cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, we nevertheless think a statement concerning jurisdiction to be appropriate. Bell's age of seventeen, if this be correct, was not a jurisdictional defect because Mississippi Code Annotated section 43-21-31 (1972) vests the circuit court with exclusive jurisdiction of a minor thirteen years or older if he be charged with a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death. Wansley v. State, 339 So.2d 989 (Miss.1976). We are of the opinion this assignment of error is without merit.
Lastly, Bell attacks the application of the bifurcated trial promulgated in Jackson v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. State
...must set forth the section and subsection number of the code defining the offense alleged to have been committed. See Bell v. State, 353 So.2d 1141 (Miss.1978). This Court has pointed out that the purpose of section 99-17-20 is to "inform the defendant specifically of the charge against him......
-
People v. District Court
...Md. 695, 415 A.2d 830, 851-52 (1980) (statutory changes procedural and ameliorative and therefore, not ex post facto); Bell v. State, 353 So.2d 1141, 1143-44 (Miss.1977) (relying on Dobbert for ex post facto analysis and finding no violation where judicial changes in death penalty process w......
-
Hill v. State
...So.2d 1358, 1361 (Miss.1977); Gilliard v. State, 428 So.2d 576 (Miss.1983); Evans v. State, 422 So.2d 737 (Miss.1982); Bell v. State, 353 So.2d 1141, 1143 (Miss.1977). In Irving v. Hargett, 518 F.Supp. 1127, 1140 (N.D.Miss.1981), the district court agreed with this Court's decision that the......
-
Jones v. State, 50944
...contained in them. See Washington v. State, 361 So.2d 61 (Miss.1978); Irving v. State, 361 So.2d 1360 (Miss.1978); Bell v. State, 353 So.2d 1141 (Miss.1977); and Jackson v. State, 337 So.2d 1242 Jones next argues there was error in Instruction C-30 concerning the form of the verdict. The al......