Hall v. State, 55567
| Decision Date | 28 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 55567,55567 |
| Parties | Mervin Lamar HALL v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Thomas D. McDonough, New Albany, for appellant.
Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by John H. Emfinger, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C.J., and HAWKINS and ANDERSON, JJ.
Mervin Lamar Hall was convicted in the Circuit Court of Union County of armed robbery and sentenced to twenty five years imprisonment. We reverse because of the trial court's failure to permit Hall to question an accomplice in the presence of the jury despite the accomplice's refusal to answer most of the questions on grounds of self-incrimination.
On May 11, 1983, an armed robbery occurred at the Eastgate Pharmacy in New Albany, Mississippi. The two employees at the pharmacy were in the presence of the robber for several minutes while he obtained some narcotics. Both identified Hall as being the robber in a lineup at the police station within hours of the robbery.
The circumstances surrounding Hall's arrest are immaterial to the disposition of this cause; however, the police obtained information of the whereabouts of incriminating physical evidence from a female companion traveling with Hall at the time of the arrest. Pursuant to a discovery motion requesting "any and all other evidence in the possession of the State of Mississippi, favorable or unfavorable to the defendant, including material relevant either to guilt or to the punishment of the defendant," the State produced a sealed plastic bag containing two guns, a shirt, and two bottles of narcotics. During a pretrial hearing on Hall's motion to suppress physical evidence, testimony from the arresting police officers indicated that Hall appeared to have recently shaven his upper lip and shaving equipment had been recovered by the State from the automobile Hall was driving when he was arrested. This information was material in that both eyewitnesses to the robbery described the perpetrator as having a mustache.
We first refer to the question of whether the state violated the discovery rules by failing to disclose the shaving equipment found in Hall's automobile. Although this evidence was not introduced at the trial, the state questioned witnesses who testified in detail about the evidence. We are of the opinion there was a violation of Rule 4.06 of the Uniform Circuit Court Criminal Rules because the evidence had the potential of being very important to the proper decision of this case by the jury. However, defense counsel did not avail himself to the procedures outlined in the special concurring opinion in Box v. State to protect his position. Box v. State, 437...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. State, 89-DP-0823
...about Hansen proceeding as he did, nor with Krecic invoking her privilege. Williamson v. State, 512 So.2d at 872; Hall v. State, 490 So.2d 858, 859 (Miss.1986).9 Douglas' principle lies embedded within our non-constitutional rules of evidence. As there was nothing for Krecic's prior stateme......
-
Blue v. State
...witness to the stand even though the witness intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Hall v. State, 490 So.2d 858, 859 (Miss.1986). Invoking this privilege makes the witness unavailable and consequently, any hearsay statements from another witness about w......
-
Balfour v. State
...stand even though the defendant is aware that the witness, if called, will invoke the Fifth Amendment to every question. Hall v. State, 490 So.2d 858, 859 (Miss.1986). In Williamson, and more recently in Hansen, this Court noted that when a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment, his silence d......
-
West v. State
...1281-82 (Miss.1987); Griffin v. State, 504 So.2d 186, 195 (Miss.1987); Watts v. State, 492 So.2d 1281, 1290 (Miss.1986); Hall v. State, 490 So.2d 858, 859 (Miss.1986); Gray v. State, 487 So.2d 1304, 1313-14 (Miss.1986); Henry v. State, 484 So.2d 1012, 1014 (Miss.1986); Foster v. State, 484 ......