Harris v. State, No. 51876

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtROBERTSON; PATTERSON
Citation386 So.2d 393
Decision Date30 July 1980
Docket NumberNo. 51876
PartiesOscar HARRIS v. STATE of Mississippi.

Page 393

386 So.2d 393
Oscar HARRIS
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
No. 51876.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
July 30, 1980.

Page 394

Gerald, Brand, Watters, Cox & Hemleben, J. I. Palmer, Jr., Jackson, George S. Monroe, Newton, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Susan L. Runnels, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, WALKER and BOWLING, JJ.

ROBERTSON, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

Appellant, Oscar Harris, was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Newton County, Mississippi, of armed robbery. He was sentenced to 30 years in the Mississippi State Penitentiary.

Harris assigns as error:

I. The trial court erred in overruling the motion to rescind the appointment of counsel on the ground of conflict of interest.

II. The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a psychiatric examination.

III. The trial court erred in denying defendant an instruction on the issue of insanity according to the rule announced in Collins v. State, 361 So.2d 333 (Miss. 1978).

IV. The trial court erred in denying defendant an instruction regarding intoxication by drug ingestion.

V. The trial court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial.

VI. Requiring defendant to serve a full sentence without parole is invidious class discrimination constituting cruel and unusual punishment and is attributable to an abuse of discretion by the Mississippi Legislature.

Page 395

Jeanette Smith worked in her husband's trailer office. On September 5, 1978, Harris, who had been released from prison on a work-release program, entered Smith's office and inquired as to the whereabouts of Mr. Smith. When Mrs. Smith informed him that her husband was not in, the defendant went outside, looked up and down the street, then re-entered the office, pointed a gun at Mrs. Smith and demanded money. She gave him the small amount of money in her billfold, and also wrote him a $200 check. Harris then ordered Mrs. Smith to hand over her car keys which she did. He then jerked the phone from the wall, struck Mrs. Smith on the head with the gun knocking her to the floor. When Harris left, Mrs. Smith crawled to the back door of the office-trailer and screamed for help.

Darvis Vance, who worked in an office nearby, heard Mrs. Smith and proceeded to her office. Vance saw Harris moving toward Mrs. Smith's automobile, and told Harris to leave the Smith car alone, but Harris replied that he was taking the car to the shop for repairs. Harris then got in the car and drove off in a reckless fashion. Harris was later arrested at Evelyn Gallaspy's home after he had wrecked Mrs. Smith's automobile.

I.

J. I. Palmer, Jr., who was appointed by the court to defend Harris, soon after his appointment filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw as defense counsel because the victim, Mrs. Smith, had talked to the senior member of his law firm about the civil liability of Harris for the wrecked automobile. After a hearing on the motion, in which it was brought out that the actual details of the conference with Mrs. Smith were not made known to Palmer, that no civil suit would be filed and, therefore, the law firm did not actually represent Mr. or Mrs. Smith in this particular matter, the court overruled the motion to withdraw.

Mississippi has adopted the "actual prejudice" rule in Augustine v. State, 201 Miss. 277, 28 So.2d 243 (1946). In Augustine, this Court stated that the test is "whether the accused has been protected, so far as counsel can do so, in all of his legal rights."

It is clear to us, from a careful study of the record in this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • Byrom v. State, No. 2001-DP-00529-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 16, 2003
    ...521, 526 (Miss.1996); Kelly v. State, 553 So.2d 517, 521 (Miss.1989); Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss.1988); Harris v. State, 386 So.2d 393 (Miss.1980). We require that counsel not only make a condensed statement of the case but also support propositions with reasons and authorit......
  • Hoops v. State, No. 93-KA-00530-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 22, 1996
    ...of an assignment. Kelly v. State, 553 So.2d 517, 521 (Miss.1989); Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss.1988); Harris v. State, 386 So.2d 393 (Miss.1980). If a party does not provide this support this Court is under no duty to consider assignments of error when no authority is cited. H......
  • Ceaser v. Ault, No. C99-2023-MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • October 2, 2001
    ...second degree robbery are subject to the 85% rule; thus, all members of the class are treated equally. See id. (citing Harris v. State, 386 So.2d 393, 396 (Miss.1980) (holding there was no "invidious class discrimination" in statute denying parole to all persons convicted of robbery with an......
  • Taylor v. State, No. 98-KA-00292-COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • March 23, 1999
    ...It has been well established in this state that arguments unsupported by authority will not be considered on appeal. Harris v. State, 386 So.2d 393, 396 (Miss.1980); Kelly v. State, 553 So.2d 517, 520 (Miss.1989). In Harris v. State, 386 So.2d at 396 (quoting Ramseur v. State, 368 So.2d 842......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 cases
  • Byrom v. State, No. 2001-DP-00529-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 16, 2003
    ...521, 526 (Miss.1996); Kelly v. State, 553 So.2d 517, 521 (Miss.1989); Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss.1988); Harris v. State, 386 So.2d 393 (Miss.1980). We require that counsel not only make a condensed statement of the case but also support propositions with reasons and authorit......
  • Hoops v. State, No. 93-KA-00530-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 22, 1996
    ...of an assignment. Kelly v. State, 553 So.2d 517, 521 (Miss.1989); Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss.1988); Harris v. State, 386 So.2d 393 (Miss.1980). If a party does not provide this support this Court is under no duty to consider assignments of error when no authority is cited. H......
  • Ceaser v. Ault, No. C99-2023-MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • October 2, 2001
    ...second degree robbery are subject to the 85% rule; thus, all members of the class are treated equally. See id. (citing Harris v. State, 386 So.2d 393, 396 (Miss.1980) (holding there was no "invidious class discrimination" in statute denying parole to all persons convicted of robbe......
  • Taylor v. State, No. 98-KA-00292-COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • March 23, 1999
    ...It has been well established in this state that arguments unsupported by authority will not be considered on appeal. Harris v. State, 386 So.2d 393, 396 (Miss.1980); Kelly v. State, 553 So.2d 517, 520 (Miss.1989). In Harris v. State, 386 So.2d at 396 (quoting Ramseur v. State, 368 So.2d 842......
  • 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