Gaston v. State
| Citation | 239 Miss. 420,123 So.2d 546 |
| Decision Date | 17 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 41617,41617 |
| Parties | Ella GASTON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Jesse P. Stennis, Macon, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lydell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Ella Gaston, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Noxubee County of a misdemeanor, attempting to obstruct an officer in the performance of his duties. She had previously been convicted in a justice of the peace court, and had appealed. The pertinent statute, Miss.Code 1942, Rec., Sec. 2294, provides: 'If any person or persons by threats or force, abuse or otherwise, attempt to intimidate or impede a judge, justice of the peace, juror, witness, prosecuting or defense attorneys or any officer in the discharge of his duties or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court, he shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the county jail, not less than one month, nor more than six months and by fine not exceeding three hundred dollars.'
Appellant and her husband, who are Negroes, live in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. On February 22, 1959 they and six of their grandchildren drove about one hundred and forty miles to Shuqualak to visit relatives. The incident for which appellant was convicted occurred that afternoon, as she and her husband were preparing to return to Hattiesburg. Nelse is appellant's husband, and the affidavit charged her with attempting to intimidate or impede the sheriff in arresting him for the crime of driving a car while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. E. W. Farrar, sheriff at the time, was one of the principal witnesses for the state. On direct examination he was asked where he first saw Nelse Gaston that day. The sheriff replied: 'We were investigating and trying to find a Negro by the name of Frank Ed Hill, that had committed an assault upon the marshal down there (Shuqualak).' Appellant's counsel objected, on the ground the statement was irrelevant and inflammatory. The objection was overruled.
This was reversible error. What happened in Shuqualak the night before, when appellant and her husband were in Hattiesburg, was wholly irrelevant to any issue pertaining to her guilt or innocence. It unnecessarily raised in the trial the element of racial prejudice, which has no place in the administration of justice. Hardaway v. State, 1911, 99 Miss. 223, 54 So. 833; Reed v. State, 1958, 232 Miss. 432, 99 So.2d 455. The jury had the duty and right to evaluate the testimony independently of that emotional factor being injected into the case by the state's counsel and witnesses. Moreover, two other events during the trial presented this same factor to the jury. Deputy Sheriff Hutcherson testified to the same effect, defendant's objection was sustained, but the court overruled the motion of appellant's counsel to direct the jury to disregard it. In addition, the opening argument of state's counsel to the jury told it the same thing, and also that defendant's husband was related to the party for whom the officers were searching, although there is no evidence to that effect. The trial court sustained an objection to the opening argument, and instructed the jury to disregard the remarks. Subsequently, the sheriff testified as described above, and the court overruled appellant's objection.
Deputy Sheriff Hutcherson testified further that the officers searched the car occupied by appellant, and belonging to her husband, and found a .22 caliber rifle under the seat. Objection of appellant's counsel was overruled, although the trial court stated it had been 'very liberal in letting in a lot of incompetent proof.' Appellant was being tried on a charge of attempting to impede or intimidate the sheriff in arresting her husband. There was no evidence that she or her husband were attempting to remove or use the rifle, or that she owned it. The fact that the officers found it in the husband's car was wholly irrelevant to the issues made in the affidavit, and had a tendency to further unduly prejudice the jury. It was error to overrule appellant's objection to that testimony.
After omitting the formal parts, the affidavit charges that Ella Gaston 'did wilfully and unlawfully attempt to impede and intimidate Emmett W. Farrar, the duly qualified and acting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rubenstein v. State, No. 2000-DP-00727-SCT (MS 12/1/2005)
...concurring opinion argues that Rubenstein's comments had no bearing on his guilt or innocence. The opinion cites Gaston v. State, 239 Miss. 420, 123 So.2d 546 (1960), arguing that this Court found reversible error when a sheriff used the word "Negro" because it was irrelevant and ¶149. In G......
-
Rubenstein v. State
...found reversible error where a trial court allowed into evidence unnecessary elements of racial prejudice. See Gaston v. State, 239 Miss. 420, 423, 123 So.2d 546, 548 (1960) (reversed because sheriff testified he was looking for a "Negro" named Frank Ed 15. Jury instruction D-17 was submitt......
-
State v. Harris
... ... 'Merely remonstrating with an officer in behalf of another, or criticizing an officer while he is performing his duty, does not amount to an attempt to intimidate or impede him.' Gaston v. State, ... 239 Miss. 420, 426, 123 So.2d 546, 549; see State v. Scott, 123 La. 1085, 1086, 49 So. 715, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 199. In both of the cited cases, the statute involved was unlike ours and required that the actions or conduct alleged to be illegal must be such as to impede or intimidate ... ...
-
State v. Tages
...or even criticisms of an officer are not usually held to be the equivalent of unlawful interference'; and in Gaston v. State, 239 Miss. 420, 123 So.2d 546, 549 (1960): 'Merely remonstrating with * * * or criticizing an officer * * * does not amount to an attempt to intimidate or impede him.......