Henderson v. State, 54973
| Decision Date | 01 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 54973,54973 |
| Citation | 453 So.2d 708 |
| Parties | John T. HENDERSON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Herman F. Cox, Gulfport, for appellant.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Frankie Walton White, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ.
John T. Henderson was convicted of possession of cocaine in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 41-29-139 (1972), in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Harrison County. He was sentenced to a term of three years in the Department of Corrections and fined Twenty Thousand Dollars. The fine was suspended conditioned upon Henderson serving the entire three year term.
Henderson appealed and assigned as error:
1. That the trial court erroneously refused jury instructions on the burden of proof in the circumstantial evidence case; and
2. That the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
We reverse and remand for a new trial because the case against Henderson was based on wholly circumstantial evidence and therefore the requested instruction should have been granted.
On the evening of November 27, 1981, Mrs. Lynn Wakefield arrived at her home in Gulfport and there found her son, Roger Garon, and his girl friend, Wendy Jackson, in Garon's upstairs bedroom. Shortly before 9:00 p.m., two young men came to the house to see Garon. One of these men was Henderson. When she found her son's door shut, Mrs. Wakefield called the Gulfport police. One of the young men came downstairs before the police arrived. Mrs. Wakefield never saw Henderson leave her house that night.
Officer Steve Gorenflo was one of the policemen responding to Mrs. Wakefield's call for assistance. She gave him permission to enter the house and accompanied him to the second floor, but did not enter her son's room.
When Officer Gorenflo entered the room, Garon and Jackson were seated at the left side of the room and Henderson was standing next to a chest of drawers on the right side of the room with his back to the officer.
When Henderson turned to face Gorenflo, the officer saw four hypodermic syringes and glasses of water on top of the chest. Henderson made two efforts to push past Gorenflo; failing in this, Henderson dove headlong out the second floor window and thus exited the room. Gorenflo seized the four syringes, three of which contained cocaine, and also a spoon containing cocaine.
At the conclusion of the state's case, Henderson moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the state had failed to prove its case. When the motion was overruled, the appellant proceeded to put on his proof. Garon, testifying for Henderson, substantially contradicted the testimony of his mother and of Officer Gorenflo. According to Garon, Henderson did not do drugs, and had only been in the room briefly when the police arrived. Garon also testified that Henderson did not know there was cocaine in the room, and that the cocaine was not visible on the chest of drawers when Officer Gorenflo entered the room. Garon did not offer any explanation for Henderson's method of departure.
When Henderson proceeded to put on his proof, he waived his assignment of error that the trial court should not have overruled his motion for a directed verdict. This is in keeping with well-settled Mississippi law. Fields v. State, 293 So.2d 430, 432 (Miss.1974).
After all the evidence was in the appellant offered two jury instructions which were refused. Instruction D-10 reads:
The Court instructs the Jury that if you can reconcile the evidence upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the Accused's innocence, you should do so and find him not guilty.
Instruction D-6 reads:
The Court instructs the Jury that if there be a fact or circumstance in this case susceptible of two interpretations, one favorable and the other unfavorable to the accused, when the Jury has considered such fact or circumstance with all other evidence, there is a reasonable doubt as to the correct interpretation, then you, the Jury, must resolve such doubt in favor of the accused, and place upon such fact or circumstance the interpretation most favorable to the accused.
The case against Henderson was based upon his constructive possession of cocaine found on premises that did not belong to him. He was never seen with the cocaine in his hands.
Constructive possession is discussed in Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414 (Miss.1971):
What constitutes a sufficient external relationship between ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. State, No. 1998-DP-01149-SCT.
...260 (Miss.1987); Clark v. State, 503 So.2d 277, 278-79 (Miss.1987); Keys v. State, 478 So.2d 266, 267 (Miss.1985); Henderson v. State, 453 So.2d 708, 709-10 (Miss.1984); Johnson v. State, 347 So.2d 358, 360 ¶ 23. In determining whether the defendant was entitled to a two-theory instruction,......
-
Goff v. State
...instruction, as well as the general circumstantial-evidence instruction. Parker, 606 So.2d at 1140-41 (quoting Henderson v. State, 453 So.2d 708, 710 (Miss.1984)). However, despite Goff's contention to the contrary, Parker is distinguishable from the case sub judice. As we explained, a circ......
-
Wetz v. State
...1282 (Miss.1986); Ruffin v. State, 481 So.2d 312, 316 (Miss.1986); Shavers v. State, 455 So.2d 1299, 1302 (Miss.1984); Henderson v. State, 453 So.2d 708, 709 (Miss.1984); Rainer v. State, 438 So.2d 290, 292 (Miss.1983); Robinson v. State, 418 So.2d 749, 750 (Miss.1982). Because the point is......
-
Conley v. State
...trial court must grant a "two-theory" instruction. Id. (citing Parker v. State, 606 So.2d 1132, 1140-41 (Miss.1992); Henderson v. State, 453 So.2d 708, 710 (Miss.1984)). s 67. The State's case was not built entirely of circumstantial evidence. Teronda Berry testified that she saw Whitney fl......