Buford v. State
| Decision Date | 07 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 21490 |
| Citation | 86 So. 860,124 Miss. 418 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | BUFORD v. STATE |
ROBBERY. Exclusion of evidence accounting for possession of money by accused prior to robbery held error.
In a trial for robbery, where the state was permitted to prove that when the defendant was arrested for the robbery in question he had possession of a sum of money equal approximately, to his share of the money if he participated in the robbery, it was error to refuse to permit him to show that a reasonable time prior to the robbery he had such money, and account for his possession, and one day prior to the robbery is too short a time to limit such evidence.
APPEAL from circuit court of Hinds county, HON. W. H. POTTER, Judge.
Ed Buford was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Burch & Enochs, for appellant.
When there is any serious doubt as to the admissibility of evidence, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused, citing Gambrell v. State, 92 Miss. 728. The proof in the case shows that at the time the appellant was arrested he had quite a sum of money in his possession. The state was allowed to introduce evidence showing that the accused possessed the said money at the said time, and thereby placing the burden upon the appellant to make a satisfactory explanation of his possession of the said money, and to meet the said burden he offered to prove that the money found upon him was money resulting from the sale of cotton, sold some three or four months prior to the time of his arrest, and that he had been in continuous possession of the said money from the sale of the said cotton down to the time of his arrest. The court refused to allow witnesses to testify that appellant had been in possession of the said money during all the said time, and confined their testimony as to the possession of the said money to the day immediately preceding the alleged robbery. Appellant duly excepted to the ruling of the court.
By restricting the evidence of the possession of the money found on the appellant at the time of his arrest, the appellant was denied the right of giving a reasonable explanation of his having the said money at the time of his arrest; in other words, the witnesses were only allowed to tell that this appellant, who is a negro, had a large sum of money in his possession just prior to the alleged robbery, but the court refused to allow them to go back and show just how, when and where the appellant came into possession of the money that was found in his possession shortly after the robbery.
This case is exceedingly close on the facts; in fact but for the evidence of the rambling witness Sanderson, who is shown by reputable witnesses and officers to have made a half dozen conflicting statements as to the identity of his assailant, there would be no sort of evidence against this appellant at all; this being true, the appellant should have been allowed, through his witnesses, to go back to the time that he acquired the money found upon him when he was arrested, and show that he had continuously possessed it during all of said time. Such an explanation of the possession of money that the state represented to have been stolen would have been reasonable and no doubt have exonerated the appellant in the eyes of the jury, but by restricting the testimony to the possession of the money to the day just prior to the alleged robbery did not afford the appellant an opportunity to explain where he got the money in question; in fact this restriction put the appellant in a position where he was denied the right of making a reasonable explanation of his possession of the money.
We respectfully submit that this case should be reversed for the reasons above set forth, and this appellant given an opportunity of going before a jury and making a full, complete and satisfactory explanation of the money found on his person at the time of the arrest, and the opportunity of having other witnesses testify and corroborate him in his claim to having had the money in his possession from January down to the time of the alleged robbery.
Frank Robertson, attorney-general, for the state.
The only error argued in appellant's brief as cause for reversal is that the court refused to allow witnesses for the appellant to testify as to the possession of money by the appellant from January, 1920, down to the time of the robbery in March. The court refused to allow the introduction of this testimony and confined the defendant to the time immediately preceding the alleged robbery.
It seems to me to be a self-evident proposition that the action of the court is eminently correct. I cannot see how the fact as to whether the defendant had thousands of dollars or hundreds of dollars in January and February, as a probative proposition, would prove that he was a thief or honest man. It seems to me that this character of evidence is entirely too remote and does not prove anything. He could have had money in large quantities in January and February and still have committed the crime.
The question in this case is one of identification. The state's case either stands or falls by this proposition. The jury has passed upon this question, and the exclusion of the testimony above referred to could possibly have no bearing upon the verdict. The real issue was identification. I submit that the case should be affirmed.
The appellant was indicted and convicted of robbery and sentenced to the state penitentiary, from which judgment he prosecutes this appeal.
The indictment charges a robbery of one J. B. Sanderson and the taking of three hundred dollars lawful money of the United States, the personal property of the said Sanderson, from the person of the said Sanderson by putting the said Sanderson in fear of some immediate injury to his person. The robbery in question took place in the storehouse of the said Sanderson on George street in the city of Jackson, at about eight o'clock at night. Immediately after the robbery the police authorities were notified, and two policemen of the city hurried to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial