Foley v. State, 49827
| Citation | 348 So.2d 1034 |
| Decision Date | 10 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 49827,49827 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Parties | Paula Lynn FOLEY v. STATE of Mississippi. |
Roy Pitts, Meridian, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Robert D. Findley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before INZER, ROBERTSON and WALKER, JJ.
Appellant Paula Lynn Foley and James Douglas Melvin were indicted in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County for the crime of burglary and larceny. Appellant was tried separately and was convicted. She was sentenced to serve five years in the State Penitentiary with two years suspended. From this conviction and sentence she appeals.
The facts in this case reveal that about 4 a. m. on April 16, 1976, Robert Jones was awakened by the sound of breaking glass. Thinking someone was breaking into his car, he rushed to his apartment window, located catty-cornered and about fifty yards from Howard's Medi-Save Pharmacy in Meridian. Looking out of the window, he saw two persons running out of the broken front window of the pharmacy. Each person was carrying a small bag. Jones watched as the two persons ran to an apartment building directly behind the pharmacy. While he could not actually see the persons as they entered the front door of the apartment building, he did hear the door slam. Leaving his observation post only to reach the telephone, he called the police. After calling, Jones then watched the building until the police arrived, and he saw no one enter or leave the building. The time lapse between the glass breaking and the arrival of the police was less than ten minutes probably six or seven.
Mr. Jones described the two persons to the police and the description of one of the persons was similar in size, hair length, and hair color to the appellant. He said one of the persons had a high pitched voice and sounded female, but he could not identify appellant as one of the two persons because he had not seen their faces.
Officer Jim Eubanks, one of the officers who arrived at the scene, talked with Jones. When the other officers arrived, they surrounded the apartment building. After talking with Jones about five minutes and determining that a burglary had been committed, Eubanks went into the apartment building. While looking in the hallways and porches outside of the apartment, he discovered a plank extending from the top porch to the pharmacy. Eubanks walked the plank to the top of the pharmacy building and discovered that a hole had been knocked in the roof of the pharmacy.
The officers searched two of the four apartments with the consent of the occupants. It was ascertained that no one was in the third apartment. After knocking on the door of the fourth apartment and receiving no answer, Eubanks went to the side of the apartment and through the window saw two people in bed. He knocked on the window and called out appellant's name. Appellant came to the door and Eubanks informed her of the burglary and asked permission to search the apartment. Appellant informed Eubanks he would have to have a search warrant. While at the door, Eubanks saw a plank similar to the one that extended from the apartment building to the pharmacy. He then made an affidavit and secured a search warrant. After serving the search warrant, Eubanks and the other officers proceeded to search the apartment. During the course of the search, the officers found a bag containing a large quantity of drugs. Appellant and her companion were then arrested. The officers continued to search and found a money bag containing about $148 concealed in a speaker cabinet belonging to the appellant. The money bag and drugs were identified as belonging to the pharmacy.
Prior to trial appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of the search. The motion was overruled.
On appeal appellant urges that the trial court was in error in refusing to suppress as evidence the fruits of the search.
Appellant bases this assignment on two propositions. It is first contended that the affidavit in support of the probable cause is not sufficient to justify the issuance of a search warrant. The affidavit contained the following underlying facts and circumstances:
At approximately 4:00...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...rather than from an informant, there is no need to show the party supplying the information was a credible person. Foley v. State, 348 So.2d 1034 (Miss.1977); Holt v. State, 348 So.2d 434 (Miss.1977); and Wolf v. State, 281 So.2d 445 (Miss.1973). The rationale for the victim or eyewitness e......
-
Jones v. State
...rather than an informant, there is no need to show the party supplying the information was a credible person. See e.g. Foley v. State, 348 So.2d 1034 (Miss.1977); Holt v. State, 348 So.2d 434 (Miss.1977); Wolf v. State, 281 So.2d 445 (Miss.1973). The rationale for the victim or witness exce......
-
Jackson v. State, 53524
...correctly states the law, as this one did, and there is evidence to justify it, granting the instruction is not error. Foley v. State, 348 So.2d 1034 (Miss.1977). We also find no merit in appellant's contention that the testimony of accomplice Howard was insufficient to support the verdict.......
-
Magee v. State, 58375
...sufficient to support such an instruction, it is proper to grant it. Franklin v. State, 460 So.2d 104, 106 (Miss.1984); Foley v. State, 348 So.2d 1034, 1037 (Miss.1977). At trial, Mrs. Simmons testified at length about the details of the robbery itself, and specifically, that two men had en......