Curry v. State

Decision Date24 May 1971
Docket NumberNo. 46343,46343
Citation249 So.2d 414
PartiesJohnny Lee CURRY v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

R. Jess Brown, Jackson, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Velia Ann Mayer, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice:

Johnny Lee Curry, appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Forrest County of the offense of possession of marijuana. This appeal involves questions concerning validity of an arrest, the search of Curry's automobile, and sufficiency of the evidence to show possession.

Lt. Roberson of the Hattiesburg Police Department (Narcotics Division) testified that on January 28, 1970, he received a complaint from a Mr. Rutland that he had been the victim of a pigeon-drop swindle, a form of larceny. He gave police a description of the man who had taken his money: a Negro male, stocky build, five feet, seven inches tall, in his mid thirties, dark complected, weighing about 180 pounds, wearing a long black leather jacket, and driving a blue automobile. The Next day the police received a telephone call from a Mr. French, who owned a package liquor store, that a man fitting the description of the one who had victimized Rutland had attempted to pigeon-drop a customer at his store. He told the police that the man was driving a blue Mercury with a Texas license tag, and was traveling with two white males and a white female. On January 30, around eleven a.m., Lt. Roberson and a fellow officer were cruising the city, with this personal knowledge and notice from official police radio bulletins concerning the suspect. They saw the Mercury and passed it going in the opposite direction at a slow speed. They saw Curry and the other occupants and observed their conformity with both the personal information which they had and the notices from the official police radio. They passed the automobile, turned and followed it. Roberson saw Curry look at them, say something to the driver, and reach down as if to put something under the seat. They then stopped the car which was owned by Curry but was being driven by Castor. The officers arrested Curry on a charge of pigeon-dropping. Roberson and his fellow officer first 'patted down' the suspects and took them and the car to police headquarters. In Curry's presence, Roberson searched the car as soon as it was parked. He found a matchbox containing marijuana under the dashboard and a package of marijuana under the accelerator.

There was ample probable cause to support appellant's arrest. An officer may arrest a person without a warrant when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person proposed to be arrested committed it. Here probable cause existed both because of the personal information which Lt. Roberson had obtained from Rutland and French, and also his knowledge from official police radio bulletins concerning Curry. Miss. Code 1942 Ann. § 2470 (Supp. 1970); Dunning v. State, 251 Miss. 766, 171 So.2d 315 (1965); Fuqua v. State, 246 Miss. 191, 145 So.2d 152 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 709, 83 S.Ct. 1018, 10 L.Ed.2d 125 (1963).

The search of the automobile in appellant's presence was reasonable and lawful. It was made immediately after the two officers brought the four arrestees to the police parking lot. Although it might not be justified as a search incident to an arrest, there was probable cause to arrest appellant and the other occupants of the car and 'just as obviously was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
153 cases
  • Townsend v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 1 Agosto 1996
    ...possession has been the subject of frequent interpretation by this Court. Actual physical possession need In Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414, 416 (Miss.1971), this Court stated: not be shown for conviction if the contraband is in the constructive possession of the accused. If the substance is......
  • Roach v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 23 Abril 2009
    ...and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it." Williams v. State, 971 So.2d 581, 587 (Miss.2007) (quoting Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414, 416 (Miss. 1971)). ¶ 40. Based on the record, we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish constructive possession of the co......
  • Jamison v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 1 Noviembre 2011
    ...of the presence and character of the particular substance and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it.” Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414, 416 (Miss.1971). Possession may be either actual or constructive. Lewis v. State, 17 So.3d 618, 620 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2009). “[K]nowledge of ......
  • Wolf v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 27 Marzo 1972
    ...the jury, and the jury could have accepted defendant's testimony that he did not know marijuana was in his automobile. In Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414 (Miss.1971), 1971), also cited and relied upon by defendant, the Court stated the rule concerning possession as What constitutes a sufficie......
  • 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