Boyles v. State, No. 45461

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtBRADY
Citation223 So.2d 651
Docket NumberNo. 45461
Decision Date26 May 1969
PartiesWayne BOYLES v. STATE of Mississippi.

Page 651

223 So.2d 651
Wayne BOYLES
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
No. 45461.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
May 26, 1969.
Rehearing Denied July 3, 1969.

Page 652

Townsend & Young, Drew, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

BRADY, Justice:

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Sunflower County, Mississippi, wherein the appellant, Wayne Boyles, who had been indicted for murder for the July 7, 1968, killing of Claude Hughes at Mr. Rogers' store on Sunflower Plantation, having entered a plea of 'not guilty,' was tried and convicted of the crime of manslaughter and was sentenced to twelve years in the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman.

According to the testimony of the appellant, he went to Rogers' store on two separate occasions on July 7, 1968, the first time being about noon. The appellant testified that the deceased was at the store about noon and that the deceased asked the appellant if he would buy him, the deceased, a beer. The appellant returned to the store about sundown, and at that time the deceased again asked the appellant about the beer he owed him. The appellant testified that he told the deceased that he did not owe him any beer. The appellant further testified that he had drunk one beer at the store at noon and two when he returned about sundown. Henry White, the father-in-law of the deceased, testified that the deceased first asked the appellant for a beer outside the store and again after the two had gone inside the store. Harry Rogers, the owner of the store, testified that the appellant had drunk three cans of beer and that the appellant got up and went over to the stool near the door where the deceased was sitting and said to the deceased, 'You have not bought me no beer, you x.x.x., I will kill you.' Tommy Hughes, son of the deceased, testified that the appellant pushed his father out of the door and stated, 'I am going to kill you.'

Page 653

The appellant denied making these threats. The deceased went outside the store in front of the appellant. Tommy Hughs testified that his father picked up a coca-cola case, but dropped it, and that the appellant ran to his pick-up truck to get his pistol. Mrs. Carroll testified that the appellant said either that he was going to kill the deceased or shoot him and that he was using vile language toward the deceased and that when she saw the appellant push the pistol which he had obtained from under the seat of his car into the stomach of the deceased, she fell down on the floorboard and that she heard two or possibly three shots. It is undisputed that when the appellant secured his pistol, which was then in the holster, and ordered the deceased to back up, the deceased grabbed with both hands the pistol and jerked appellant away from his truck. They wrestled over the gun. Three shots were fired, one striking appellant in the left side of the throat and two entering the deceased's body in the lower stomach or abdomen. Tommy Hughes testified that the first shot fired by appellant struck his father when his father was some nineteen steps away from the appellant. The deceased fell on the concrete porch, face downward, and was bleeding when Deputy Sheriff Herman Parker arrived. Parker pronounced him dead. When C. O. Sessums, Jr., Sheriff, arrived, he listened for a heart beat on deceased's back or for any sign of life, and heard none. Then he checked to see if Claude Hughes was breathing, but did not detect any sign of life.

The record further discloses that the appellant delivered himself to the police station at Drew, Mississippi, where he awaited arrival of the sheriff. When the sheriff arrived, the appellant voluntarily handed him the pistol; and at the time that the pistol was received from the appellant, the appellant stated that he had shot a man.

Several assignments of error are urged, some of which require but slight comment; nevertheless, we will accord them such consideration as is necessary. The first error urged is that the state failed to prove the corpus delicti by substantial evidence. A review of the pertinent facts as above set forth disposes of this assignment of error for the reason that the death of the deceased was conclusively shown, not only by the testimony of Mrs. Parker, Mr. Sessums and Mr. Rogers, based upon their observations at Rogers' store, but by the fact that the body was taken to the funeral home where it was undressed and where the two other bullet wounds in the abdomen were detected by the sheriff and the deputy sheriff.

It is undisputed that a difficulty arose and that the deceased was shot three times and that the shots were fired by the appellant. As was pointed out in Elliott v. State, 183 So.2d 805 (Miss.1966), the criminal agency as to the cause of the death can be established by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. However, in the case at bar the cause of death was shown not only by circumstantial evidence but by actual evidence insofar as hearing the shots being fired is concerned. The record discloses that the weapon was a nine shot H. & R. double action revolver. The sheriff testified that he took six live 22 cartridges and three hulls or cartridges which had been fired from the pistol which appellant handed to him. The proof shows that there were three bullet holes in the deceased. Tommy Hughes testified that 'Mr. Wayne shot my father.' Even in the absence of this direct testimony on the part of the sixteen year-old son of the deceased, the circumstantial evidence presented sufficiently warrants the finding on the part of the jury that the deceased was shot and killed by the appellant; and therefore, we find that the State properly proved the corpus delicti. King v. State, 251 Miss. 161, 168 So.2d 637 (1964); Keeton v. State, 175 Miss. 631, 167 So. 68 (1936); Perkins v. State, 160 Miss. 720, 135 So. 357 (1931); Pitts v. State, 43 Miss. 472 (1870).

Insofar as the second error urged is concerned, which is that the court erred

Page 654

in overruling the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Tolbert v. State, No. 56850
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 12, 1987
    ...522-23 (Miss.1972); Moore v. State, 237 So.2d 844, 848 (Miss.1970); Robinson v. State, 228 So.2d 373, 376 (Miss.1969); Boyles v. State, 223 So.2d 651, 654 (Miss.1969); Spurlin v. State, 218 So.2d 876, 878 (Miss.1969); Nevels, 216 So.2d at 530; see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at ......
  • Chinn v. State, No. 47209
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 9, 1973
    ...the exceptions recognized in Miranda. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See also Boyles v. State, 223 So.2d 651 (Miss.1969); Spurlin v. State, 218 So.2d 876 (Miss.1969), and Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 (Miss.1968). The only question asked by the poli......
  • Burge v. State, No. 47234
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 29, 1973
    ...made subsequent thereto, it would remain admissible in evidence. Fabian v. State, 267 So.2d 294 (Miss.1972); Boyles v. State, 223 So.2d 651 (Miss.1969); Spurlin v. State, 218 So.2d 876 (Miss.1969); and Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 (Miss.1968). Officers in the presence of a suspect, either......
  • Harrell v. State, No. 50440
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 12, 1978
    ...made subsequent thereto, it would remain admissible in evidence. Fabian v. State, 267 So.2d 294 (Miss.1972); Boyles v. State, 223 So.2d 651 (Miss.1969); Spurlin v. State, 218 So.2d 876 (Miss.1969); and Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 (Miss.1968). Officers in the presence of a suspect, either......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Tolbert v. State, No. 56850
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 12, 1987
    ...522-23 (Miss.1972); Moore v. State, 237 So.2d 844, 848 (Miss.1970); Robinson v. State, 228 So.2d 373, 376 (Miss.1969); Boyles v. State, 223 So.2d 651, 654 (Miss.1969); Spurlin v. State, 218 So.2d 876, 878 (Miss.1969); Nevels, 216 So.2d at 530; see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at ......
  • Burge v. State, No. 47234
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 29, 1973
    ...made subsequent thereto, it would remain admissible in evidence. Fabian v. State, 267 So.2d 294 (Miss.1972); Boyles v. State, 223 So.2d 651 (Miss.1969); Spurlin v. State, 218 So.2d 876 (Miss.1969); and Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 (Miss.1968). Officers in the presence of a suspect, either......
  • Chinn v. State, No. 47209
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 9, 1973
    ...the exceptions recognized in Miranda. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See also Boyles v. State, 223 So.2d 651 (Miss.1969); Spurlin v. State, 218 So.2d 876 (Miss.1969), and Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 (Miss.1968). The only question asked by the poli......
  • Harrell v. State, No. 50440
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 12, 1978
    ...made subsequent thereto, it would remain admissible in evidence. Fabian v. State, 267 So.2d 294 (Miss.1972); Boyles v. State, 223 So.2d 651 (Miss.1969); Spurlin v. State, 218 So.2d 876 (Miss.1969); and Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 (Miss.1968). Officers in the presence of a suspect, either......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT