Deaton v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 46144,46144 |
| Parties | Jimmy DEATON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
James L. Mounce, Tupelo, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Timmie Hancock, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Jimmy Deaton, appellant, was convicted of grand larceny in the Circuit Court of Lee County, for the theft of 200 quail of the value of $1.00 each. The evidence supports the jury's verdict, including its finding that the stolen quail were worth more than the necessary $100 to constitute grand larceny. Miss. Code 1942 Ann. § 2240 (Supp.1968). The owner of the quail and an accomplice of defendant both testified sufficiently as to their value.
The indictment charged that the crime was committed on November 14, 1968, while the evidence showed that it was actually committed on August 16, 1968. Under Code section 2451, an indictment is not insufficient for omitting to state the time at which the offense was committed in a case where time is not of the essence, or for stating the time imperfectly. Miss. Code 1942 Ann. § 2451 (1956). Time may or may not be of the essence of an offense when an alibi defense is presented, depending upon the circumstances of the particular case. Snowden v. State, 62 Miss. 100 (1884). In the instant proceedings the record reflects that appellant was not surprised or prejudiced by testimony that the offense occurred on August 16, rather than the date charged in the indictment. Appellant offered testimony of an alibi for both dates. Moreover, the opening statement of the district attorney contended that the crime was committed on the proper date, and, when the owner of the quail was testifying concerning the date of the offense, the court overruled defendant's objection to testimony about the August 16 date.
The State obtained four instructions, and originally the court approved sixteen instructions for defendant, including one which told the jury that if the state failed to prove that Deaton stole the birds in question on November 14, 1968, then it should find for defendant. On closing arguments, defendant's attorney referred to that instruction and argued that, if the jury believed the testimony, it could not find that the quail were stolen on November 14. The jury retired to consider its verdict, after having been handed the instructions with the one in question removed and marked 'refused' by the trial judge. We find no reversible error in the withdrawal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Givens v. State
...385 So.2d 1298, 1301 (Miss.1980) (involving the trial judge's specifically finding absence of surprise or prejudice); Deaton v. State, 242 So.2d 452, 453 (Miss.1970) (finding discrepancy did not show surprise or prejudice and conviction was sustained although the offense occurred on August ......
-
Allman v. State
...was not prejudiced in the preparation of his defense or exposed to double jeopardy by the indictment's language. Deaton v. State, 242 So.2d 452, 453 (Miss.1970). The indictment need not use the precise words of the statute. Watson v. State, 483 So.2d 1326, 1328 We hold there is no merit to ......
-
James v. State, 96-KA-01058-COA.
...State, 532 So.2d 584 (Miss.1988); Norman v. State, 385 So.2d 1298 (Miss.1980); Shelby v. State, 246 So.2d 543 (Miss.1971); Deaton v. State, 242 So.2d 452 (Miss.1970); Miss.Code Ann. Section 99-7-5 (Rev.1994); Miss.Code Ann. Section 99-7-21 (Rev. (c) Two count indictment ¶ 12. James alleges ......
-
Norman v. State, 51995
...to the indictment. As for the matter of time, the trial court in permitting the state to amend correctly relied on Deaton v. State, 242 So.2d 452 (Miss.1970), and Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-7-5 (1972), which states: "(A)n indictment for any offense shall not be insufficient . . .......