Fornett v. State
| Citation | 392 So.2d 1154 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 52385,52385 |
| Parties | Roy Estine FORNETT v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
H. Bernard Gautier, David A. Stewart, Jr., Pascagoula, for appellant.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Charles W. Maris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and BROOM and HAWKINS, JJ.
Roy Estine Fornett was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the murder of Levernon Thompson, alias "Monkey Man". He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
On the morning of February 23, 1979, Fornett, through a window in his home, saw Thompson enter Collier's Place. He armed himself with a 12-gauge single-barrel shotgun, loaded with buckshot, and proceeded next door to Collier's Place. Fornett testified that his purpose was to ask Thompson why he had robbed him a few days earlier.
Thompson and several others were standing around talking in the back room of Collier's Pool Hall. Percy L. Williams and Edgar Earl Collier testified at the trial that Fornett walked into the room, shot Thompson in the left chest, and then left. Both testified that no words were spoken nor was any movement made by Thompson toward Fornett. Thompson died instantly.
Defendant testified that he asked Thompson why he had robbed him, that Thompson did not answer but just looked at him, that he then shot Thompson and left. Defendant admitted on the witness stand that he did not see a gun in Thompson's hand, nor did Thompson make any move toward him.
In response to a police radio call about the shooting, Patrolmen Robertson, Massey and Miller of the Pascagoula Police Department, proceeded to Collier's Place to investigate the shooting. Upon being advised that Fornett did the shooting, they proceeded to his apartment in Carver Village. Officer Robertson testified that he knocked on the door, that defendant Fornett came to the door, opened it and said: Robertson further testified that, after placing defendant under arrest, he noticed a shotgun lying on a chair and he asked defendant was that the gun, and defendant replied "Yeah".
Defendant was then taken to the police station where his Miranda rights were explained to him and where he signed a waiver of these rights in the presence of Anthony L. Best and Norvel Robertson. After again explaining to defendant his Miranda rights, Criminal Investigators Bullock and Best took a five-page statement from defendant, which he signed and they witnessed. In his statement, Fornett admitted that, upon seeing Thompson go into Collier's Place, he got his shotgun, went across the street and entered Collier's Place and confronted Thompson, that when he asked Thompson why he robbed him Thompson "didn't say nothing, he just looked at me." Whereupon, Fornett said that he shot Thompson. When asked by Investigator Bullock if the shotgun found in the chair in the apartment was the one used, defendant Fornett answered "yes".
Defendant assigns as error:
I. The court erred in overruling the defendant's Motion to Suppress his statement for the reason that the same was inadmissible as being involuntarily made.
II. The court erred in sustaining the state's objection to testimony proffered by the defendant as to the reputation of the deceased for violence.
Defendant made his written confession only after his Miranda rights had been fully explained to him and after he had signed a waiver of these rights. The uncontradicted testimony was that there were no threats, promises, duress, fear or pressure of any kind. The testimony was that Fornett's confession was freely and voluntarily made, after a full explanation of his rights to him.
Defendant contends that, before his Miranda rights were explained to him and after he had spontaneously stated that he shot Thompson, Officer Robertson wrongly asked him if the shotgun lying on a chair was the gun used. Defendant answered "Yeah". Defendant contends that this one question asked violated his rights and constituted reversible error. There is no merit in this contention.
The evidence is undisputed that when Officer Robertson knocked on defendant's door, the defendant opened the door and, upon seeing the two officers in uniform, blurted out The shotgun lying across the chair was in plain view, and Robertson asked one question after defendant had already confessed, "Was that the gun used?", to which question the defendant answered "Yeah". The defendant admits that the spontaneous statement "I'm the one that shot him", made before any question was asked, was admissible. The latest case where we have held such a spontaneous statement admissible is Neal v. State, 386 So.2d 718 (Miss.1980).
In Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 (Miss.1968), we also held that a question concerning the weapon used was admissible under the Miranda exception of "general on-the-scene investigation." In Nevels, we said:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tolbert v. State
...in a murder case unless there was doubt as to who was the aggressor. Berry v. State, 455 So.2d 774, 776 (Miss.1984); Fornett v. State, 392 So.2d 1154, 1156 (Miss.1981); McDougle v. State, 355 So.2d 1386, 1389 (Miss.1978). In the instant case, all of the testimony heard prior to the proffer ......
-
Brown v. State, 98-KA-00058-COA.
...Sykes was the aggressor before proof of Sykes's bad reputation for violence could be admitted as competent evidence. Fornett v. State, 392 So.2d 1154, 1156 (Miss.1981); McDonald v. State, 538 So.2d 778, 779 (Miss.1989). Thus Sykes's propensity to fight would be relevant and admissible only ......
-
McDonald v. State, 58195
...aggressor in the affray. Tillman v. State, 225 Miss. 275, 83 So.2d 86 (1955); Shinall v. State, 199 So.2d 251 (Miss.1967); Fornett v. State, 392 So.2d 1154 (Miss.1981); Fisher v. State, 481 So.2d 203 (Miss.1985); Weeks v. State, 493 So.2d 1280 (Miss.1986); Tolbert v. State, 511 So.2d 1368 I......
-
Weeks v. State
...the jury only the issue of manslaughter. Self-defense was not before the jury. Weed v. State, 406 So.2d 24 (Miss.1981); Fournet v. State, 392 So.2d 1154, 1156 (Miss.1981); McDonald v. State, 218 So.2d 21, 22 Clearly a trial judge has considerable discretion as to relevancy and admissibility......