Hankins v. State
| Decision Date | 21 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47617,47617 |
| Citation | 288 So.2d 866 |
| Parties | Marion R. HANKINS v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
J. Larry Kennedy, Jackson, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by John Underwood, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Marion Hankins was indicted by a grand jury of the First District of Hinds County for the murder of Robert Chaney. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twelve years in the state penitentiary.
The record reflects that either in the late evening hours of October 31 or the early morning hours of November 1, 1972, Robert Chaney was shot and killed by Marion Hankins. The difficulty preceding this senseless death arose under the following circumstances.
About 11:30 on the evening of October 31, 1972, James Abernathy and Chaney, accompanied by Abernathy's dog Skippy, repaired themselves to 'Miss D's,' a lounge. Abernathy testified that he was given permission by the proprietress of the lounge to bring the dog into the establishment. In accord with this permission Abernathy and Chaney seated themselves at the bar with the dog occupying a chair between them.
The bartender, appellant here, according to Abernathy, told them that they would have to get the 'G.D. dog out' and when informed that permission had been received for the dog's presence, the accused responded that he did not give a Thereupon, at the request of the proprietress and in order to avoid trouble, Abernathy and Chaney, accompanied by Skippy, left the lounge.
Immediately thereafter, when they were some fifteen feet from the front door of the lounge, Abernathy stated that they heard shooting and screaming within the building, whereupon Chaney returned and just as he opened the door Hankins, the bartender, came out with a gun in hand with which he shot and killed Chaney.
The accused's version of the affair was that he advised Abernathy and Chaney that it was against the rules to have a dog on the premises and that an argument ensued and that he obtained a gun from under the bar since he did not want both of them to assault him. Whereupon the proprietress placed herself between them and ushered Abernathy and Chaney to the door and requested him to bring the keys so that it might be locked. As he was obtaining the keys, he observed Chaney and Abernathy returning through the door to the lounge. He then obtained the gun which he had put down upon their departure and walked toward them when the following occurred, according to his testimony: He stated that the first shot fired by him accidentally struck the proprietress when she was pushed into his line of fire by either Chaney or Abernathy, injuring her, thus explaining the screams heard by abernathy.
The appellant first contends for reversal that the trial court erred in permitting the revolver and five rounds of spent ammunition to be introduced into evidence through a defense witness. In determining this contention we note that the appellant's justification for shooting Chaney was self-defense. His conviction did not rest upon the identity of a particular pistol being fired at the time. There simply was no issue relating to who shot and killed the deceased or with what weapon. Under these circumstances we are unable to state that the appellant was in any way prejudiced by the admission of the pistol and spent ammunition or that it in any way affected any substantial right belonging to him. Indeed, the appellant's own testimony makes this apparent. Collins v. State, 202 So.2d 644 (Miss.1967). We conclude this contention to be without merit.
It is next urged that the court erred in not sustaining the motion of the defendant for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the state's testimony and that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The appellant is presently precluded from raising any question concerning the motion for a directed verdict since he introduced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State, 53257
...his motion for a directed verdict. Lucas v. State, 381 So.2d 140 (Miss.1980); Watts v. State, 317 So.2d 715 (Miss.1975); Hankins v. State, 288 So.2d 866 (Miss.1975). (402 So.2d at Tubbs' defense was an alibi and it is well established that a jury is not under a duty to accept an alibi defen......
-
Bingham v. State, 53757
.... The resolution of such conflicts as there were in the evidence in this case, was peculiarly for the jury. In Hankins v. State, 288 So.2d 866 (Miss.1974), it was In Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561, 132 So. 563 (1931), we stated: We invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not r......
-
Fishboats, Inc. v. Welzbacher
...judicial discretion of the trial court and it has the inherent power to limit examination to relevant factual issues. Hankins v. State, 288 So.2d 866 (Miss.1974). Aimless repetition and references to immaterial and inflammatory matters should also be avoided. Isaacks v. State, 337 So.2d 928......
-
Wheeler v. State
...accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict. Murphree v. State, 228 So.2d 599 (Miss.1969). 302 So.2d at 251. In Hankins v. State, 288 So.2d 866 (Miss.1974), the Court In Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561, 132 So. 563 (1931), we stated: We invite the attention of the bar to the fact t......