Gilleylen v. State, No. 46602

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtRODGERS
Citation255 So.2d 661
Docket NumberNo. 46602
Decision Date13 December 1971
PartiesRobert GILLEYLEN v. STATE of Mississippi.

Page 661

255 So.2d 661
Robert GILLEYLEN
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
No. 46602.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Dec. 13, 1971.

Page 662

Johnny N. Tackett, Aberdeen, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gilfoy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

RODGERS, Presiding Justice:

The appellant Robert Gilleylen was indicted by the Grand Jury of Monroe County, Mississippi, for the crime of murder. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment in the stated penitentiary.

Page 663

He has appealed to this Court, and now contends that he did not receive a fair trial in the Circuit Court. He charges that the testimony produced by the State against the defendant was circumstantial and that the State did not obtain an instruction properly defining the burden of proof requiring that the State prove the guilt of the defendant to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. He charges that the court erred in granting three other instructions and that the court erred in permitting the introduction of the testimony of a pathologist.

We have determined that it is necessary to reverse this case for the reasons hereafter stated. We, therefore, refrain from detailing the facts except where it is essential to point out the error to avoid a repetition upon a new trial.

We are of the opinion that that part of the testimony of the pathologist which depended upon a report of a technician must be given after the testimony of the technician who made the test before the pathologist may use the report as a basis for his opinon. To hold otherwise would mean that it would not be necessary for the State to confront the defendant with the witnesses against him. Such a procedure would violate rights of the defendant under the State (Second 26) and Federal (Sixth Amendment) Constitutions. See Flowers v. State, 243 So.2d 564 (Miss.1971) and Spears v. State, 241 So.2d 148 (Miss.1970).

The facts in this case are unusual in that there are two defenses offered by the defendant to the charge of murder: (1) Incapacity of the defendant to have committed the alleged crime; and (2) Failure on the part of the State to prove that a crime had been committed. The testimony reveals that the defendant suffered industrial electrical burns to such an extent that his right arm was burden off just above the wrist, his left arm was amputated near his shoulder, and his left leg was amputated halfway between his ankle and his knee. He walked on his knees.

The testimony shows that the body of the alleged victim was almost destroyed in a fire so that the only apparent mark of violence consisted of a twisted piece of cloth material wrapped tightly around the neck of the deceased.

The testimony offered by the State to convict the defendant with the death of the deceased was based upon circumstantial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Leavitt v. Arave, No. 01-99008.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 14, 2004
    ...as a reference point for determining what federal law was established at the time) were split as well. Compare Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661, 664 (Miss.1971) (reversible error to give instruction that the "presumption of innocence ... is not intended to shield from punishment anyone who......
  • Leavitt v. Arave, No. 01-99008.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 14, 2004
    ...as a reference point for determining what federal law was established at the time) were split as well. Compare Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661, 664 (Miss.1971) (reversible error to give instruction that the "presumption of innocence ... is not intended to shield from punishment anyone who......
  • Williams v. State, No. 54294
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 18, 1984
    ...it is necessary that it be proven to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with that of innocence. Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661 (Miss.1971); Love v. State, 208 So.2d 755 (Miss.1968). The reason for this requirement is that it is only the exclusion of every reasonable ......
  • Bennett v. State, No. 2003-DP-00765-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 11, 2006
    ...and direct evidence are admitted at trial. Smith v. State, 897 So.2d 1002, 1009 (Miss. Ct.App.2004) (citing Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661, 663 ¶ 67. In addition to direct scientific evidence such as fingerprints and DNA, "[d]irect evidence has been held to include evidence such as eyewi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Leavitt v. Arave, No. 01-99008.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 14, 2004
    ...as a reference point for determining what federal law was established at the time) were split as well. Compare Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661, 664 (Miss.1971) (reversible error to give instruction that the "presumption of innocence ... is not intended to shield from punishment anyone who......
  • Leavitt v. Arave, No. 01-99008.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 14, 2004
    ...as a reference point for determining what federal law was established at the time) were split as well. Compare Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661, 664 (Miss.1971) (reversible error to give instruction that the "presumption of innocence ... is not intended to shield from punishment anyone who......
  • Williams v. State, No. 54294
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 18, 1984
    ...it is necessary that it be proven to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with that of innocence. Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661 (Miss.1971); Love v. State, 208 So.2d 755 (Miss.1968). The reason for this requirement is that it is only the exclusion of every reasonable ......
  • Bennett v. State, No. 2003-DP-00765-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 11, 2006
    ...and direct evidence are admitted at trial. Smith v. State, 897 So.2d 1002, 1009 (Miss. Ct.App.2004) (citing Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661, 663 ¶ 67. In addition to direct scientific evidence such as fingerprints and DNA, "[d]irect evidence has been held to include evidence such as eyewi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT