Dean v. State, 41058

Citation106 So.2d 501,234 Miss. 376
Decision Date17 November 1958
Docket NumberNo. 41058,41058
PartiesAllen DEAN, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

Ronald C. Brown, Laurel, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

McGEHEE, Chief Justice.

In this case the appellant, Allen Dean, Jr., a Negro man about 23 years of age followed Bernice Pugh from a cafe to her home at 413 Van Buren Street in Laurel, Mississippi, where she lived with her three children, Edward Lawrence Pugh, age 4 years, Shirley Ann Hayes, age 18 months, and Bobbie Ann Hayes, age 7 months. It seems that her husband, Bernard Hayes, lived at Taylorsville, a town about 15 or 20 miles from Laurel. He was, therefore, not at home on the occasion in question.

Since the appellant assigns as error and seeks a reversal of his conviction for the murder of Shirley Ann Hayes, a Negro child, on the grounds, (a) that the trial court refused to allow him to have a psychiatric examination at the Mississippi State Hospital at Whitfield, Mississippi, a distance of nearly 100 miles from Laurel, (b) the overruling of appellant's motion for a continuance of the case for the term, (c) the overruling of the appellant's motion to quash the regular and special venires, (d) the admission of testimony as to the appellant's confession of the crime before any proof was made by the State as to the corpus delicti, (e) the admission of the testimony of Dr. Earl McRae as to the sanity of the accused, and (f) the overruling of his motion for a new trial, it is altogether essential that we relate the facts sufficiently to show that the State had established sufficient facts and circumstances to prove the corpus delicti, when considered in connection with the fact of the subsequent confession before any proof was offered as to the confession.

As heretofore stated, the appellant followed Bernice Pugh, the mother of Shirley Ann Hayes, to their home where the three children were in bed asleep; that she threatened to 'call the law' if he didn't leave her premises and go on home; that the appellant had never been to or in her home prior to that occasion, and that she had only a speaking acquaintance with him; that the appellant went 'on up the alley' and that she then began to prepare for bed; that upon hearing the loud barking of a dog at her window, and between her house and a vacant house next door, she looked out and saw the appellant peeping in her window, immediately after he left to go on up the alley; that she thereupon inquired of him as to what he was doing hanging around her house and that he told her: 'You know what I want;' that she then, after threatening to call the law, thought he had left, and then returned to the bedroom and undressed for bed except as to an underslip, and that she then put on her top coat and went out to get a bucket of water; that while returning she met the appellant; that they engaged in a struggle and that he almost tore off all her clothes, that she then ran into the house through the front door and latched the screen and that he then went to the back door and demanded admission; that she refused to open the door and that he then kicked it open and came on into the house; that she then ran to the home of Ellery Smith and his wife, Irene, asking them for help; that it was then nearly 12 o'clock at night; that Ellery Smith was asleep when she first arrived; that Ellery ordered the appellant away from his house and demanded that he quit cursing and using the vile epithets toward Bernice Pugh; that Ellery Smith ordered the appellant to leave his home when he was insisting that Bernice Pugh come outside to where he was; that she, Bernice Pugh, tried to go out the back door of the Ellery Smith home but was headed off by the appellant and that she then ran out at the front door and left; that she went from there to the home of R. A. Boyd who lived at 412 Van Buren Street where his daughter, Bonnie Mae Flowers, was residing with him; that they both heard her insisting that the appellant, who had followed her to the Boyd house, should leave her premises, which was next door to the Boyd house; that R. A. Boyd advised the witness to report him to the police; that she told the appellant that she was going to report him to the police if he didn't leave and that he thereupon told her that if she was going to get the officers 'she had better bring more than one'; and that she then went to 'Nick's Cafe', called the police and returned to her home upon the assurance of the officers that they would come immediately; that two policemen, Messrs. Landrum and Ellzey, arrived at her home and that by that time she had discovered that Shirley Ann Hayes was missing from her bed.

The two officers thereupon began a thorough search for the missing child, went to the home of the appellant, looking for him since the little four-year boy, Lawrence Pugh, had told the officers that the appellant had carried Shirley Ann Hayes out of the house through the back door. The officers failed to find the appellant at his home where he lived with his father, and thereupon returned to Bernice Pugh's house and made a thorough search of the entire premises for the child; and that upon failing to find the child anywhere about the premises they returned to where the appellant lived and found that he had then returned home. These officers stated to him that 'they had to find the baby' and that at first he denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of the child. But upon being confronted with the facts that the officers already knew, or as to which they had been informed, the appellant then stated that 'I will go and show you where the child is.' He led them near to the scene of the child's murder and stated that 'she is right over there', pointing to where they immediately found the child. They found that the child was dead and saw choke marks about its neck and that it was bleeding profusely, and they were then informed by the child's mother that it had no bruises or other signs of violence on its body when she put it to bed.

The proof further shows that the officers then carried the appellant to the police station and it was not until that time that they asked him whether or not he would be willing to make a statement about the matter. They said that he then dropped his head for a moment and then spoke up and said, 'Yes, I will make a statement.' Of course, the State had shown by the officers that no coercion, promises, or hope of reward or leniency had been made to him to induce the confession, and their testimony in this respect was wholly uncontradicted by any witness in the case, although the appellant was offered the opportunity before the court out of the presence of the jury to offer any testimony that he desired to offer as to whether or not the confession that was to be related to the jury by the officers was made freely and voluntarily.

The proof shows that the appellant then proceeded to state to the officers that he first assaulted the child's mother at her home and that she got away from him and that he then took the child out of its bed and carried it to the scene of the crime; that he led the way for the officers down an alley and along a ditch, which had been excavated in connection with the construction of a freeway through the City of Laurel, and when he got near where the child was he told the officers 'She is right over there,' and pointed in the direction. The officers confirmed the information given to them by the appellant, found that the child was dead and saw the signs of violence on its throat and elsewhere. Moreover, the appellant stated to them that in connection with the crime that he committed against the child he choked it until it quit crying. The facts in regard to the crime against the child are too...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • King v. State, 43225
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1964
    ...to be tried during the term in which the indictment is returned, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. See Dean v. State, 234 Miss. 376, 106 So.2d 501 (1958); Mississippi Code Annotated section 2518 (1942). The last line in Mississippi Annotated Code section 1520 (1942) is as follows:......
  • Wells v. State, 47626
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1974
    ...shall not be grounds for a reversal unless the Supreme Court shall be satisfied that injustice resulted therefrom. Dean v. State, 234 Miss. 376, 106 So.2d 501 (1958). However the problem here is that the continuance was granted and the defendant has not cited any case nor are we able to fin......
  • Rush v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1966
    ...statute when a motion for continuance has been filed. Some of the cases reflecting our admonition in this regard are Dean v. State, 234 Miss. 376, 106 So.2d 501 (1958); Bone v. State, 207 Miss. 20, 41 So.2d 347 (1949); Ogden v. State, 174 Miss. 119, 164 So. 6 (1935); Ware v. State, 133 Miss......
  • Saucier v. State, 46703
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1972
    ...reference to filing the proper affidavit; therefore, for that reason, among others, the motion was properly overruled. Dean v. State, 234 Miss. 376, 106 So.2d 501 (1958). Appellant argues, however, that he was not given a speedy trial because the State of Mississippi did not obtain his rele......
  • 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