Eubanks v. State, 39987
| Decision Date | 12 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 39987,39987 |
| Citation | 85 So.2d 805,227 Miss. 162 |
| Parties | Clyde EUBANKS v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Strong & Smith, Louisville, Crawley & Brooks, Kosciusko, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by J. R. Griffin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Clyde Eubanks was convicted of receiving stolen property of the value of less than $25. Mississippi Code 1942, Sections 2249, 2538. We have considered carefully the testimony, and it was sufficient as against a peremptory. However, the case will have to be reversed and remanded for a new trial because of some erroneous instructions granted the State.
The State was granted the following instruction: 'The court instructs the jury for the State of Mississippi that unexplained flight is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn and considered with all the other facts and circumstances connected with the case.'
The facts did not warrant the giving of this instruction. Appellant gave an entirely plausible and uncontradicted explanation of the reason why he was absent from the county for five weeks. The sheriff's testimony to the effect that he could not locate appellant does not negative the uncontradicted status of appellant's testimony in this respect. Instructions on flight, if given at all, should be used only in cases wherein that circumstance has considerable probative value. Moreover, such an instruction is primarily argumentative. 1 Alexander, Mississippi Jury Instructions (1953), Sec. 2341. However, even if the facts here had warranted an instruction on flight, this one is erroneous. It is practically a peremptory statement to the jury that appellant fled and that the jury could consider this with other facts in making an inference of guilt. It should have been qualified so as to be related to the facts of this case, and also to tell the jury it must first find the facts before it can use flight along with other circumstances to support an inference of guilt. 1 Alexander, Ibid., Sec. 2342.
The State also obtained the following instruction which erroneously assumed as true the principal facts in issue: 'The court instructs the jury for the State that if they believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Clyde Eubanks, did unlawfully and feloniously buy or obtain two Goodyear automobile tires of the value of $25.00 or more in money, the personal property of the D. L. Fair Lumber Company, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drummer v. State
...(“This instruction should not have been given. It is confusing in form [and] capable of misleading the jury....”); Eubanks v. State, 227 Miss. 162, 85 So.2d 805 (1956) (“The facts did not warrant the giving of this instruction. Appellant gave an entirely plausible and uncontradicted explana......
-
Burgess v. State
...So.2d 785, 789 (Miss.1984) ; Craft v. State, 271 So.2d 735 (Miss.1973) ; Quarles v. State, 199 So.2d 58 (Miss.1967) ; Eubanks v. State, 227 Miss. 162, 85 So.2d 805 (1956).19 See Howard v. State, 182 Miss. 27, 181 So. 525 (1938).20 See Newell v. State, 175 So.3d 1260, 1277 (Miss.2015) (Dicki......
-
Bridgeforth v. State, 55993
...State, 477 So.2d 1350 (Miss.1985); McBride v. State, 366 So.2d 666 (Miss.1979); Fields v. State, 272 So.2d 650 (Miss.1973); Eubanks v. State, 85 So.2d 805 (Miss.1956). In his closing argument the prosecutor made the following I anticipate that, during the course of my remarks, I may become ......
-
Pannell v. State, 54226
...material evidence, if at all. Howard marks the point at which our state's law on this issue begins to evolve. Eubanks v. State, 227 Miss. 162, 85 So.2d 805 (1956) is the first of the "modern" cases to address the issue. Clyde Eubanks was convicted of receiving stolen property. The jury was ......