Breland v. State
| Decision Date | 14 June 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 39216,39216 |
| Citation | 73 So.2d 267,221 Miss. 371 |
| Parties | BRELAND v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
William V. Murry, Hattiesburg, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., by Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Bruce Breland, was convicted in the Justice of the Peace Court of District No. 5 of Marion County of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. He appealed the case to the circuit court, where he was again tried and convicted by a jury and was sentenced to serve a term of ninety days in jail and to pay a fine of $500. From that judgment he prosecutes this appeal.
Shelby Pittman, the deputy sheriff, testified that on the night of December 27, 1952, he was in the Negro quarters of the City of Columbia and that he observed several Negroes going into and coming out of the appellant's cafe; that he walked up to the building, looked through the glass door and saw the appellant deliver half pint of whiskey to a Negro, who paid the appellant $1 for the whiskey; and that he took the whiskey from the Negro as the Negro left the cafe. A few minutes later the officer entered the cafe and arrested the appellant. The half pint of whiskey, which was moonshine whiskey, was introduced in evidence by the State. On cross-examination the office stated that he did not arrest the Negro who had purchased the whiskey, and that he did not know his name. The officer stated that there were seven or eight people in the cafe at the time the appellant sold the half pint of whiskey to the Negro.
The appellant denied that he had sold any whiskey during the night of December 27, 1952, or at any other time. He stated that there were several other people in the cafe during the evening and at the time that he was arrested. The appellant's wife testified that she was in the cafe during the evening and at the time of the appellant's arrest, and that she did not see any whiskey in the cafe.
The appellant assigns several errors as grounds for reversal on this appeal. But the most serious contention made by the appellant's attorney in his brief is that the court erred in permitting the State to introduce in evidence over the appellant's objection the docket of C. O. Stevens, a justice of the peace, to show that the appellant had been convicted on a criminal charge and had paid a find of $5 on April 25, 1952; and, in view of the conclusion that we have reached on that point, it will not be necessary for us to consider the other assignments of error.
While the defendant was being cross-examined by the district attorney, he was asked whether he had ever been convicted of any crime. He stated that he had not. He was then asked whether he had ever paid a fine in any court. He stated that he had never paid a fine. He was then asked if it were not true that he had paid a fine of $5 and court costs in Judge C. O. Stevens' court on April 25, 1952. He stated that he had never been in Judge Stevens' court. After the defendant had rested, the State introduced C. O. Stevens as a witness in rebuttal, and over the objection of the defendant's attorney the State was permitted to have the witness identify and introduce in evidence one page of the justice of the peace court docket, which showed that the defendant had been charged with the crime of 'interfering with the law.' The docket showed no arraignment, no plea, no trial or conviction, and no judgment of any kind. There was a notation on the docket as follows: The defendant objected to the admission in evidence of the docket entries, unless the court record was brought up; but the court overruled the objection. No record of a trial or conviction was produced.
Section 1693, Code of 1942, provides that:
'Any witness may be examined touching his interest in the cause or his conviction of any crime, and his answers may be contradicted, and his interest or his conviction of a crime established by other evidence; * * *.'
This Court has held that the examination of a witness touching his conviction of crime may extend to misdemeanors as well as to infamous crimes. Lewis v. State, 85 Miss. 35, 37 So. 497. This Court has also held that the record of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopkins v. State, 90-KA-0921
...678 (Miss.1973); Benedetti v. State, 249 So.2d 671 (Miss.1971); Dorroh v. State, 229 Miss. 315, 90 So.2d 653 (1956); Breland v. State, 221 Miss. 371, 73 So.2d 267 (1954); Smith v. State, 217 Miss. 123, 63 So.2d 557 (1953); Scarbrough v. State, 204 Miss. 487, 37 So.2d 748 (1948); Hartfield v......
-
U.S. v. John
...law a witness may be impeached by proof of misdemeanor convictions, Lewis v. State, 1904, 85 Miss. 35, 37 So. 497; Breland v. State, 1954, 221 Miss. 371, 73 So.2d 267. However, the witness may be asked only as to convictions; not the details of the crime. Allison v. State, Miss.1973, 274 So......
-
Bass v. State, 89-KA-0244
...exception of traffic offenses. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 13-1-13 (1972); Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 63-9-15 (1972) (now repealed); Breland v. State, 221 Miss. 371, 73 So.2d 267 (1954); Brown v. State, 96 Miss. 534, 51 So. 273 A different rule applied, however, as to youth court offenses. Miss.Code Ann. ......
-
Mangrum v. State, 45732
...where no conviction was had against the witness. Statham v. Blaine, 234 Miss. 649, 107 So.2d 93, 108 So.2d 213 (1958); Breland v. State, 221 Miss. 371, 73 So.2d 267 (1954); Turberville v. State, 179 So. 340 (Miss. 1938); Mars v. Hendon, 178 Miss. 157, 171 So. 880, 173 So. 286 (1937); Starli......