Entrekin v. State, 41897
| Decision Date | 16 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 41897,41897 |
| Citation | 242 Miss. 262,133 So.2d 551 |
| Parties | Robert Carroll ENTREKIN and Raymond Bernard King v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Johnston & Wilson, Pascagoula, for appellants.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Robert Carroll Entrekin and Raymond Bernard King were jointly indicted for the alleged robbery of Richard Spicer. The jury found them guilty, and the court sentenced each of them to a term of three years in the penitentiary.
The version of Spicer, the victim, was that the two defendants came to him after he had drunk several bottles of beer and while he was playing pool at the Tide in Ocean Springs late at night, and invited him to go with them to Earl Bond's Place, several miles away. He got into the car, sitting on the front seat between them. On the way, they stopped the car, told him to get out, and demanded his money. Although he had $30 in his billfold, he told them that he did not have any money. They thereupon knocked him down, got his money, beat and 'stomped' him, and left him by the side of the road. A short time later, John and Kenneth Spratlin, father and son, driving along the road, heard the injured man calling for help, and carried him to Earl Bond's Place. The next day, the Spratlins found Spicer's driver's license and billfold in the weeds about twenty or thirty feet from the place where he was lying. Of course there was no money in the billfold at the time. Spicer positively identified both defendants as the robbers.
Neither of the defendants testified. Their defense was an alibi, and several witnesses testified in support of that claim. However, on cross-examination, some of them became confused as to the dates when they saw the defendants, and others were shown to have made different statements. Thus the defense of an alibi lost must of its potency.
No brief was filed for Entrekin; but a brief was filed for King, contending that he was entitled to a directed verdict, that the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence, and that errors were committed during the trial. The Court has diligently studied and considered the record in this case and finds no error therein. The evidence did not warrant the granting of a directed verdict for the defendants or either of them and the verdict was not contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The issue, as made, was for the jury and was properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State, 42222
...v. State, 219 Miss. 129, 155, 63 So.2d 517, 70 So.2d 82, 68 So.2d 868 (1954); Entrekin v. State, 242 Miss. 262, 264, 134 So.2d 926, 133 So.2d 551 (1961). Lang v. State, 230 Miss. 147, 163, 170, 87 So.2d 265, 89 So.2d 837, 92 So.2d 670 (1956), amplified the remedy under the 1952 act. It held......
- State v. Black, 54644
-
Gordon v. State
...think the foregoing comments are applicable to the questions raised by Gordon in this proceeding. To the same effect is Entrekin v. State, 242 Miss. 262, 133 So.2d 551, 134 So.2d 926 (1961) (denying It is undisputed that Gordon is the man who assaulted the prosecutrix. He admitted it in his......
-
Entrekin v. State
...King, whose conviction for the offense of robbery, along with that of his co-indictee, Robert Carroll Entrekin, was affirmed October 16, 1961, 133 So.2d 551, proceeding under Sec. 1992.5, Code of 1952, Rec., has filed an application for permission and authority to present to the trial court......