Eubanks v. State, 53426
| Decision Date | 29 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 53426,53426 |
| Parties | Jeffrey Glenn EUBANKS v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
John E. Gregg, Raymond, for appellant.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Frankie Walton White, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C. J., and ROY NOBLE LEE and PRATHER, JJ.
Jeffrey Glenn Eubanks was convicted of simple assault upon a conservation officer by the Circuit Court of Perry County and sentenced to five years, fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. Eubanks appeals, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the State to offer evidence of other separate and independent crimes and acts of misconduct not charged in the indictment.
On July 4, 1980, Eubanks, age 18, was driving his pickup truck in the Town of Beaumont when Harold Farlow and Cecil Shoemake, Mississippi Game and Fish Commission Conservation Officers, flagged him to stop. Farlow testified he had a warrant for Eubanks' arrest for reckless driving on state property, alcoholic beverages on state property, failing to yield to a blue light and resisting arrest which occurred at Lake Perry on June 21, 1980.
After stopping Eubanks, the officers informed him they had a warrant for his arrest. Eubanks got back in his truck and attempted to drive away, but Shoemake reached into the truck and grabbed the keys. Eubanks then jumped out of the truck and the officers proceeded to chase him. Unsuccessful in their attempt to apprehend Eubanks, Farlow radioed for assistance. He testified he was aware the Highway Patrol and the Police Chief of Beaumont also had warrants for Eubanks' arrest relating to the incident of June 21, 1980.
William A. Smith, a Mississippi Highway Patrolman, responded to Farlow's call and upon arriving at the scene seized Eubanks and the two men fell to the ground. Farlow and Shoemake got into the struggle and Farlow testified Eubanks kicked him in the stomach, and again in the ribs while he was escorting Eubanks to the police car. Upon arriving at the jail, Eubanks kicked Farlow a third time and also broke several of the jail windows and a commode tank. Due to this encounter, Eubanks was charged with simple assault upon a conservation officer.
Evidence was introduced by the state, over objection and after repeated motions for a mistrial, concerning the incident of June 21, 1980, resulting in the issuance of the warrant for appellant's arrest which eventually led to the charge in the indictment--simple assault upon a conservation officer. Eubanks contends he was denied a fair trial due to the jury repeatedly being exposed to testimony regarding other alleged misconduct and misdemeanors.
Illustrative of the testimony which Eubanks complains was error follows through a question by the district attorney to Farlow:
Q. I'd like for you to tell the Court and the jury the reason why no arrest was effected on that day. (Referring to June 21, 1980).
A. [W]e had a lot of reports from campers ... that there has been a lot of teenagers out there drinking and possibly smoking pot....
Over objection, Farlow further testified that on June 21, 1980, he had to jump out of the road to keep from getting run over by Eubanks; Eubanks was cussing the officers; Farlow thought Eubanks was going to "swing at" Officer Shoemake; and eventually, Eubanks got in his truck and sped away. Farlow then went on to say:
A. I called H. J., and H. J. set up a roadblock somewhere there in Beaumont, and he run through it and he missed him. Well, then, Smitty, the Highway Patrolman, set up on 98 over there and he went through his, I believe and he run him down 98. I heard the chase and everything on my radio down 98, and I think he lost him....
Mississippi follows the general rule that proof of a crime distinct from that alleged in the indictment should not be admitted in evidence against the accused. E.g., Loeffler v. State, 396 So.2d 18 (Miss.1981); Massey v. State, 393 So.2d 472 (Miss.1981).
In Massey we cited Floyd v. State, 166 Miss. 15, 148 So. 226 (1933), which set forth the reason for this rule.
The reason and justice of the rule is apparent, and its observance is necessary to prevent injustice and oppression in criminal prosecutions. Such evidence tends to divert the minds of the jury from the true issue, and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. State
...v. State, 437 So.2d 16 (Miss.1983); Davis v. State, 431 So.2d 468 (Miss.1983); Mason v. State, 429 So.2d 569 (Miss.1983); Eubanks v. State, 419 So.2d 1330 (Miss.1982). Apparently the majority feels that because Lambert admitted his prior drug involvement to investigating officers that the s......
-
McFee v. State
...misconduct sufficiently grievous to merit a reversal. But see, Hughes v. State, 470 So.2d 1046, 1048 (Miss.1985); Eubanks v. State, 419 So.2d 1330, 1332 (Miss.1982); Collins v. State, 408 So.2d 1376, 1381 (Miss.1982); Massey v. State, 393 So.2d 472, 474-75 (Miss.1981); Killingsworth v. Stat......
-
Walker v. State
...v. State, 472 So.2d 398 (Miss.1985); Hughes v. State, 470 So.2d 1046 (Miss.1985); Gallion v. State, 469 So.2d 1247 (1985); Eubanks v. State, 419 So.2d 1330 (Miss.1982); Massey v. State, 393 So.2d 472 (Miss.1981); Floyd v. State, 166 Miss. 15, 148 So. 226 (1933). As we stated in The reason a......
-
Howell v. State
...a controlled substance. He argues that the indictment was not relevant and was highly prejudicial. Further, he relies on Eubanks v. State, 419 So.2d 1330 (Miss. 1982) (simple assault case) and Black v. State, 418 So.2d 819 (Miss.1982) (burglary), for the general legal principle that trial t......