Head v. State
| Decision Date | 22 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 41948,41948 |
| Citation | 246 Miss. 203,136 So.2d 619 |
| Parties | William L. HEAD and Jesse M. Cummings v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Earle L. Wingo, Hattiesburg, for appellants.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellants were jointly indicted with Berry Smith, Jr., for possession of burglary tools in Forrest County, Mississippi. After severance granted Smith was separately tried, convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary. Smith appealed his conviction and in Smith v. State, 240 Miss. 738, 128 So.2d 857, his conviction was reversed and he was discharged on the question of illegal search under the Constitution since he was in control and possession of the car. The appellants, Head and Cummings, were passengers in the car, one on the front seat and the other on the rear seat. These appellants were then tried together, convicted and sentenced to serve a term of five years in the State penitentiary, from which conviction and judgment this appeal is taken.
The facts in this case are identical with those in Smith v. State, supra, except those facts apply to the driver of the car and the person in possession of the car. Therefore, the defendants herein, as passengers in the car, are in a different situation than the appellant, Smith, in the former trial.
About 8:30 or 9 o'clock at night, near the airport gate southeast of the City of Hattiesburg, Forrest County, Mississippi, the sheriff, Bob Waller, was patroling in an unmarked car about ten or fifteen miles per hour when he met a Chevrolet Impala automobile traveling at a very slow rate of speed in the opposite direction. The Sheriff passed the Chevrolet, turned around and came up behind it. The driver of the Chevrolet, Smith, motioned the Sheriff to come up beside his car. The Sheriff pulled up beside the stopped Chevrolet and rolled his window down. When the driver of the Chevrolet saw that it was the Sheriff, he drove away rapidly. As the Sheriff described it in the case at bar, the car occupied by appellants 'scratched out' and 'took off in a cloud of smoke.' The Sheriff sounded his siren and immediately pursued the Chevrolet. Within ten seconds the Chevrolet was exceeding the speed limit.
The record in this case discloses that during this chase up Highway 49 by-pass, several articles were thrown out of the window on the right-hand side of the Chevrolet. These articles were thrown out by the defendants, the passengers in the car. One of these appellants was sitting in the front seat on the right-hand side, and the other appellant was sitting in the rear. Searches along the road shoulder resulted in the finding of gloves, a cap, a pistol and a shoulder holster in which the pistol was a perfect fit, other gloves, a .45 calibre revolver, an assortment of tools established to be burglary tools, and other tools. Among the items found was a gas mask, and it was shown by the testimony of the sheriff that in the Hattiesburg vicinity there were several safes equipped to eject a disabling gas when opened. Additional things were found in the trunk of the car, including clothes, money wrappers, money in some of the socks, and many other articles which the jury was fully justified in finding that same were used as burglary tools.
The appellants rely on Smith v. State, supra, a companion suit to this case. The law of that case is not applicable here. Berry Smith, Jr., was the driver of the car, and this Court took into consideration in that case that Smith was the owner and in the rightful possession of the car and had a perfect right to object to the unlawful search. Neither of the present appellants can make the same objection. One of these appellants was in the front seat on the right side and the other was in the back seat. They were both seen throwing the articles out of the car, and later when the sheriff went back to the car he found further articles on the right side of the front seat and on the back seat.
In order to avail of the constitutional provision of unlawful search and seizure, the sheriff must invade the premises or property of defendant, and such defendant must at least have a right of possession that would make him owner for the time being.
In Rose v. State, 222 Miss. 699, 76 So.2d 835, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boster
...362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697; Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208; Head and Cummings v. State, 246 Miss. 203, 136 So.2d 619.) On numerous occasions we have applied this principle to the search of an automobile and held that one who is neither an ......
-
Hamburg v. State
...875 (Miss.1968); Bradshaw v. State, 192 So.2d 387 (Miss.1966); Slyter v. State, 246 Miss. 402, 149 So.2d 489 (1963); Head v. State, 246 Miss. 203, 136 So.2d 619 (1962). See also McLemore v. State, 178 Miss. 525, 172 So. 139 (1937). However, the ruling in Head and the other cases has been mo......
-
State v. Edwards
...of the automobile. * * *' (p. 420, 213 A.2d p. 433.) The Supreme Court of Mississippi in Head and Cummings v. State, 246 Miss. 203, at page 207, 136 So.2d 619, at page 621, cert. den. 371 U.S. 910, 83 S.Ct. 251, 9 L.Ed.2d 170, 'Since the defendants were not in possession of the automobile, ......
-
Harris v. State
...Moreover, the gun was offered and received in evidence without any objection on the part of the appellant. In Head v. State, 246 Miss. 203, 206, 136 So.2d 619, 621 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 910 83 S.Ct. 251, 9 L.Ed.2d 170 (1962), this Court held: In order to avail of the constitutional......