Hutchins v. State, 45186
| Decision Date | 10 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45186,45186 |
| Parties | Jerry HUTCHINS v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Noel W. Buckley, Jackson, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Appellant, Jerry Hutchins, was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Newton County for the crime of burglary. He was sentenced to serve a term of seven years in the State Penitentiary. From that sentence he appeals to this Court. For the reasons set out below we reverse and remand for a new rrial.
The proof on behalf of the state established that between the hours of 5 P.M. on Friday, March 15, 1968, and 8 A.M. Saturday, March 16, 1968, the Hickory Branch office of the Newton County Bank was broken into, a hole was burned in the vault door and a substantial amount of money was feloniously carried away.
The only evidence offered by the state that connected the appellant with the crime in any way was the testimony of two witnesses, Bobby Gene Smith and O'Neal Buddy Goodman, who admitted participating in the burglary or the planning thereof. The state did not attempt to corroborate the testimony of either of the witnesses by any physical or circumstantial evidence.
Bobby Gene Smith testified that he was present at the planning session in Jackson when the preliminary plans were made to burglarize the Hickory branch office. Smith stated that he had known appellant most of his life and that he was present and participated in the making of the plans. Smith was also present when a trip to Hickory was undertaken the next night in order to 'case' the branch office. They left two of their co-conspirators in Hickory to carry out this purpose and returned to Jackson. He also placed the appellant as a participant in this exploratory trip. Smith was driving the car on this venture and back in Jackson ran afoul of the law and was incarcerated. Unable to return that night to retrieve his companions he was also unable to participate in the burglary and did not purport to have any direct knowledge of the event or circumstances thereof, including who carried out the crime. Smith testified also as to the participation of the State's other witness, Goodman, at both of these preliminary stages of the crime.
It was brought out that he had been convicted of grand larceny and several misdemeanors and on cross examination he admitted to having been a narcotics user. Smith also admitted that in 1966 there had been some 'friction' between him and the appellant over the sale of an automobile. He denied, however, that his testimony was offered with any expectation r hope of leniency.
The other witness offered by the state was O'Neal Buddy Goodman, a native of Alabama, who admitted on direct examination that he had previously been convicted of burglary and had been a narcotics addict for a 'pretty good period.' He also testified as to appellant's participation in the planning session and the 'casing' trip to Hickory. There were no material differences in the testimony as to these occurrences between the version offered by Smith and that of Goodman.
Goodman testified that on March 15, 1968, the appellant and the other co-felons left Jackson by car and arrived in Hickory about 11:30 p. m. He remained in the car as a lookout while the appellant and the others broke into the bank building. He testified to seeing flashes from the cutting torch before the appellant and the others emerged an hour and a half later with the loot.
On cross examination the extent of Goodman's dependance on narcotics was vividly brought out. He stated that he had been given drugs by a doctor that morning and was under the influence while testifying. If he is without drugs for 12 to 18 hours he experiences severe withdrawal effects. He also revealed that after he was arrested he was not given drugs until after he had given a statement to the authorities.
The first defense witness was a medical doctor who was qualified as an expert on drug addicts. His testimony had the effect of an impeaching witness who testified that an addict's reputation for truth and veractity was poor and could not be believed under oath. On cross...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 94-DP-00248-SCT
...was entitled to present to the jury this testimony for whatever it was worth. Wilson v. State, 234 So.2d 303 (Miss.1970); Hutchins v. State, 220 So.2d 276 (Miss.1969). Without this testimony the State may not have been able to establish the charges set forth in the indictment. It is to be n......
-
Ross v. State
...(Miss. 1951); Jefferson v. State, 52 So.2d 925 (Miss.1951); Conway v. State, 177 Miss. 461, 171 So. 16 (1936); see also Hutchins v. State, 220 So.2d 276 (Miss.1969); Brown v. State, 219 Miss. 748, 70 So.2d 23 (1954); Williams v. State, 220 Miss. 800, 72 So.2d 147 (1954); Martin v. State, 19......
-
Jones v. State
...(same); Thomas v. State, 340 So.2d 1, 2 (Miss.1976) (same); Black v. State, 336 So.2d 1302, 1303 (Miss.1976) (same); Hutchins v. State, 220 So.2d 276, 278 (Miss.1969) (same); Cole v. State, 217 Miss. 779, 785, 65 So.2d 262, 264 (1953) (same); Creed v. State, 179 Miss. 700, 176 So. 596, 597 ......
-
Dilworth v. State
...(Miss.1951); Jefferson v. State, 52 So.2d 925 (Miss.1951); Conway v. State, 177 Miss. 461, 171 So. 16 (1936)); see also Hutchins v. State, 220 So.2d 276 (Miss.1969); Brown v. State, 219 Miss. 748, 70 So.2d 23 (1954); Williams v. State, 220 Miss. 800, 72 So.2d 147 (1954); Martin v. State, 19......