Cooper v. State
| Decision Date | 17 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45166,45166 |
| Citation | 218 So.2d 874 |
| Parties | Samuel H. COOPER v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Harry Kelley, Jackson, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Samuel H. Cooper, appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County of armed robbery, and was sentenced to serve ninety-nine years in the state penitentiary. Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 2367 (1956).
The evidence without any real dispute established that Cooper was guilty of the offense charged, and that on the day in question, May 2, 1967, he was of sound mind and knew the difference between right and wrong. The record reveals an especially exaggerated case of armed robbery. Around eight P.M., Cooper and his accomplice, Donald Hughes, entered the building of Cole Bros. & Fox Wholesale Grocery of Canton. Cooper grabbed James H. Fox, president of the company, cursed him and threatened to blow his brains out. He hit Gilmore on the head with the butt of his pistol, and made them both lie down on the floor. He and Hughes, on threat of killing James Fox, made him open the safe from which they extracted about $2600. They waited for a time for another salesman, Shelby Fox, to come in with his collections for the day, then beat him up and took cash from another safe and a watch and ring from Gilmore. James Fox was not able to open another safe, so defendant, stating he would kill him, shot at and narrowly missed him. Defendant, after threatening to kill Shelby Fox, shot him in the arm. Defendant and Hughes then tied the men up, and undertook to make their escape. They had been on company premises for over an hour. Hughes testified for defendant, and admitted most of these acts. In short, the evidence is virtually undisputed that Cooper was guilty of the offense charged.
Canton Policeman Goolsby followed the car driven by Cooper, which was speeding in the city. When defendant stopped and got out, the officer told him he was undr arrest. While he was searching Cooper, Hughes stepped out the other side of the car and began shooting at goolsby. The officer replied, and in the meantime Cooper had jumped in a ditch. Goolsby then testified that Cooper shot him in his right leg. Defendant's objection to this latter statement was sustained, and the Goolsby. The officer replied, and in the Goolsby's statement with reference to defendant shooting him. Defendant's motion for a mistrial was overruled. There was no error in this action of the trial court. It promptly sustained defendant's objection, and admonished the jury. Moreover, this evidence was properly admissible within the trial court's sound discretion, since it dealt with an event immediately following the robbery and part of the chain of circumstances evidencing motive and intent. Even if error, it was harmless.
Cooper's principal defense was insanity, but the evidence to support it was relatively slight, and the jury could accept, as it did, the testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDaniel v. State
...consistently reminded the Bench and Bar that specific intent to steal must be shown by the testimony in robbery cases. "In Cooper v. State, 218 So.2d 874 (Miss.1969) we said: 'Specific intent must be shown under the armed robbery statute. Miss. Code 1942 Ann. § 2367 (1956).' 218 So.2d at "W......
-
Herron v. State, 47589
...objection to the testimony is sustained and the jury is admonished to disregard the question, there is no reversible error. Cooper v. State, 218 So.2d 874 (Miss.1969); Kelly v. State, 239 Miss. 683, 124 So.2d 840 (1960); Crawford v. State, 223 Miss. 189, 77 So.2d 923 (1955); Richey v. State......
-
Thomas v. State
... ... This Court has consistently reminded the Bench and Bar that specific intent to steal must be shown by the testimony in robbery cases ... In cooper v. State, 218 So.2d 874 (Miss.1969) we said: 'Specific intent must be shown under the armed robbery statute. Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 2367 (1956).' 218 So.2d at 876 ... We said in Thomas v. State, 165 Miss. 897, 148 So. 225 (1933) that: 'Under the law intent to steal is an ... ...
-
Norman v. State, 51995
...Instructions unsupported by the evidence need not, and should not, be given. Murphy v. State, 226 So.2d 755 (Miss.1969); Cooper v. State, 218 So.2d 874 (Miss.1969). It follows the court properly declined to instruct on simple Norman's fifth assignment of error lacks merit. By Section 99-15-......