Hemphill v. State, 48172
| Decision Date | 23 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48172,48172 |
| Parties | Robert HEMPHILL v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Billy J. Jordan, Thomas R. Mayfield, Columbus, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Ben H. Walley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Robert Hemphill was tried in the Circuit Court of Winston County upon an indictment charging that he had sold marijuana, a controlled substance. He was convicted of that offense and sentenced to serve a term of ten years in the penitentiary. From that conviction and sentence he has appealed.
Of the assignments of error, argued as requiring reversal, several appear to have merit. However, in view of the conclusion we have reached, it is necessary to notice only one.
A careful examination of the entire record reveals that there was no evidence capable of supporting a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hemphill was guilty of the offense charged.
The substance of the State's case may be summarized as follows. Two agents of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics drove to Winston County from Jackson. Upon their arrival, they picked up one Donald Young. They then drove out LaBoucher Road to the home of one Landers. There they picked up Landers and another individual by the name of Thompson. From there, they drove approximately three miles north on LaBoucher Road to an abandoned store. Thompson got out and obtained a package, of what proved to be marijuana, out of the bushes next to the store. Thompson returned to the car and handed the marijuana to one of the agents. The party left the store and went back to Landers' home where a discussion of the price of the marijuana took place. The agents had offered $11 for a lid and $12 was being asked.
While the agents were negotiating for the purchase of the marijuana from Landers at Landers' home, Hemphill and one Danny Hudspeth drove up and stopped their car in front of the house, at the side of the public road. Landers walked out to the car, which was thirty or forty yards from where the agents and others were gathered, or as otherwise expressed, one-third to one-half of a football field away. Both agents testified that they could hear nothing of what was said by either Landers or Hemphill in the brief (three or four minutes) exchange which took place between them as Hemphill sat in his car. They stated unequivocally that they were not within 'conversation distance.' Neither Hemphill nor Hudspeth ever did get out of Hemphill's car, and, after exchanging a few words with Hemphill, Landers rejoined the agents. After this incident occurred (and this was Hemphill's sole appearance in connection with any part of the entire episode), the discussion of price was resumed between Landers and the agents, and Landers agreed to accept $11 a lid. It is the State's position, as well as it can be understood, that because Landers consented to accept $11, rather than the $12 originally demanded, it has been shown that Hemphill was involved in the transaction.
There is no testimony that Hemphill had any part in the possession of the marijuana, the negotiations for the sale, or in the sale itself of the marijuana to the agents. Immediately after his brief conversation with Landers, Hemphill drove away, according to one of the agents, and, according to the other, he drove away after Landers had sold them the marijuana.
Both agents, on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kolberg v. State
...Steele v. State, 544 So.2d 802, 808 (Miss. 1989) (quoting Hester v. State, 463 So.2d 1087, 1093 (Miss.1985) and Hemphill v. State, 304 So.2d 654, 655 (Miss.1974) quoting Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426, 32 So.2d 251, 251 (1947)). We must accept the evidence in the light most favorable to ......
-
Ashford v. State, 90-KA-0233
...the defendant be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Murphy v. State, 566 So.2d 1201, 1206 (Miss.1990); Hemphill v. State, 304 So.2d 654, 655-56 (Miss.1974); Matula v. State, 220 So.2d 833, 836 (Miss.1969). We put it well almost a half century The question before us is not whether ......
-
Turner v. State
...was a connection between Turner and the sale. In support Turner relies on Clemons v. State, 482 So.2d 1102 (Miss.1985); Hemphill v. State, 304 So.2d 654 (Miss.1974); and the non-Mississippi decisions of Pennington v. State, 526 So.2d 87 (Fla.App.1987), and Moncivalles v. State, 733 S.W.2d 6......
-
James v. State, 96-KA-01058-COA.
...on the state. It is our duty here to maintain these principles." Hester v. State, 463 So.2d 1087, 1093 (Miss.1985) and Hemphill v. State, 304 So.2d 654, 655 (Miss. 1974) quoting Westbrook, 32 So.2d at Accepting the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, including all reasonable,......