Clay v. State, 43819

Decision Date21 March 1966
Docket NumberNo. 43819,43819
PartiesMose CLAY v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

W. S. Moore, Jackson, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by R. Hugo Newcomb, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Justice:

Annie Lee Woods, a single colored woman, twenty-one years of age, was a victim of a confidence game known as pigeon dropping on August 3, 1964, in Natchez, Mississippi.

On that day a colored man and a colored woman stole from her the sum of $702.00. The victim immediately phoned the Natchez Police Department. Police officers drove her around the City of Natchez for approximately fifteen minutes in an attempt to locate the guilty couple, and then returned to the police station where she gave the police a description of the thieves.

On September 26, 1964, Mose Clay, the defendant-appellant, was going through the City of Natchez in an automobile owned and driven by Jack Singleton. A motorcycle policeman stopped Clay and Singleton and ordered them to follow him to the city hall. They did so and reached the city hall about 11:00 a.m.

The defendant was questioned at some length by policemen and about three hours after the arrest or detention, Annie Lee Woods was brought to the police station and there identified the defendant as the man who took her money. At the time of the identification Clay was in a cell with another colored man and two or three policemen were standing by the cell door. Clay was subsequently indicted by the grand jury of Adams County.

The arresting officer or officers did not testify at the trial. The only police officer who did testify was Charles C. Bahin, Detective Lieutenant of the Natchez Police Department. Bahin met Mose Clay for the first time on September 26, 1964, the day he was brought to the police station. Bahin testified that Clay under questioning admitted to him that he was a pigeon dropper. He further stated that a roll of play money was taken from Clay's pocket and several rolls of play money secured with rubber bands, envelopes and a letter were found in a package or bag which was taken from Mose Clay. Clay admitted to Bahin that this was his property and that it was used in pigeon dropping games. This testimony was admitted over vigorous objections of defendant's counsel.

Two white men and three colored men testified that it would have been impossible for the defendant to have stolen the money from Annie Lee Woods because he was in Brookhaven and Wesson, Mississippi, the entire day of August 3, 1964, the day of the theft. Wesson is about seventy-five miles from Natchez, Mississippi. The jury found the defendant guilty and he was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. From this verdict and sentence, the defendant-appellant appeals to this Court.

The defendant contends that inasmuch as he was illegally detained by the Natchez Police at the time that he was identified by Annie Lee Woods, that she should not have been permitted to testify against him at the trial because this was violative of his right to be secure in his person against unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures. We do not think there is any merit in this contention, and that no matter where the prosecuting witness may have been at the time she first identified the defendant, that she should be allowed to testify to this at the trial.

The defendant next contends that he was illegally detained or illegally arrested in that his arrest was without probable cause, and that any admissions made by him or any items of property found on him or in his possession were fruits of the illegal arrest and should not have been admitted in evidence. We agree with the defendant in this contention.

Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi provides:

'The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, and possessions, from unreasonable seizure or search; and no warrant shall be issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, specially designating the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.'

Section 2470, Mississippi Code of 1942, Annotated (1956), provides:

'An officer or private person may arrest any person without warrant, for an indictable offense committed, or a breach of the peace threatened or attempted in his presence; or when a person has committed a felony, though not in his presence; or when a felony has been committed, and he has reasoanble ground to suspect and believe the person proposed to be arrested to have committed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Barnett v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 26, 1967
    ...Miss. 191, 145 So.2d 152 (1962), but merely shifted to the prosecution the burden of proof on the issue of probable cause, Clay v. State, Miss., 184 So. 2d 403 (1966). 10 As a general rule a fugitive from another state arrested without a warrant must be taken immediately before a magistrate......
  • Upshaw v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 26, 1977
    ...about the arrest was not specifically questioned about whether he informed the defendant of the reason for his arrest. In Clay v. State, 184 So.2d 403 (Miss.1966) we reversed and remanded because a defendant testified that he was not advised of the object and cause of his arrest and held th......
  • Canning v. State, 45479
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 29, 1969
    ...have been sustained until such time as the State of Mississippi offered proof to show that the search was a lawful search. Clay v. State, 184 So.2d 403 (Miss.1966). At this point a case of like nature would ordinarily be reversed so that the defendant could have a trial without being confro......
  • State v. Vaughn
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 1970
    ...him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.' As authority for this proposition, appellant cites Clay v. State, 184 So.2d 403 (Miss.1966) and People v. Superior Court of Merced County, 264 Cal.App.2d 165, 70 Cal.Rptr. 362 (1968). Both cases involved statutes similar ......
  • 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