Kennard v. State, 41890

Decision Date03 April 1961
Docket NumberNo. 41890,41890
PartiesClyde KENNARD v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

R. Jess Brown, Vicksburg, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Justice.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of burglary. He was jointly indicted with Johnny Lee Roberts. Roberts entered a plea of guilty and testified against appellant.

While the appellant took the stand and denied the charges made against him, there was ample evidence to justify the jury in finding the following facts.

Roberts was acquainted with appellant, having once lived on appellant's farm. Roberts had been employed by the Forrest County Co-op, Inc., as a helper on the delivery truck, for several years prior to September 25, 1960, the date of the alleged burglary here involved. Appellant went to Roberts' home on a Thursday night before September 25, 1960, and asked Roberts about getting some feed 'on the side.' The Forrest County Co-op sold chicken feed and the appellant had theretofore been a customer of the Co-op. Appellant told Roberts he would pay him $2.50 a sack, which was considerably less than the price of egg mash. Roberts then told appellant that he did not know right then, that he would see. Appellant again saw Roberts on either Friday or Saturday night and asked about the feed and Roberts told appellant it would be Sunday morning. On one of these occasions appellant suggested Roberts leave the rear door to the Co-op unbarred so that entrance could be made by shoving the door open. When the Co-op closed at noon, Saturday, September 24, 1960, Roberts left the rear door unbolted and about daylight the following morning Roberts drove his automobile to the rear of the Co-op store and entered the rear door he had left unbarred. He loaded five sacks of egg mash, a chicken feed, into the trunk of his automobile and went back into the store and placed about six more sacks on the dolly used to move feed. About that time Roberts saw the night watchman, who was a special night watchman, who worked only on weekends and who watched several other businesses, come around the building. The night watchman saw Roberts' automobile but did not see Roberts. He took the tag number of Roberts' automobile and went directly to another place across the street to call the police, and while he was gone Roberts left with the five sacks of feed in his automobile. Roberts drove directly to appellant's chicken house and put the five sacks of egg mash therein. He then drove to appellant's home, located about a mile and a half from the chicken farm, where appellant was standing in his yard. Appellant gave Roberts ten dollars. Roberts told appellant the night watchman had gotten his tag number and appellant said he would do away with the feed. Appellant also told Roberts to go to Roberts' mother's house located about ten miles away and stay there. Roberts went to his brother's house and found the police were looking for him. When Roberts got to his home the police were there and arrested him. Roberts told the police what had happened and appellant was arrested at his home about nine A.M., after returning from his chicken house. A search warrant was obtained and the officers searched the appellant's chicken house and premises about noon the same day and a large amount of egg mash was in numerous large feeders but no full sacks of feed were found. A tag was found from a one hundred pound egg mash sack bearing serial number 7906930, and of the brand of feed sold by the Forrest County Co-op. The sack bearing the next serial number, 7906931, was found on the dolly at the rear of the Co-op store.

It is first contended that the lower court erred in overruling a demurrer to the indictment. We are unable to find sufficient merit in this assignment to justify discussion. The indictment meets all the tests laid down in our cases both as to form and substance.

Appellant contends that the proof was insufficient to support the verdict. As already stated, the testimony was ample to justify the jury in finding the facts as stated above. Appellant's argument is largely to the effect that there was no testimony that appellant actually participated in the burglary, and that there was no proof that appellant and Roberts acted in concert to accomplish the crime of burglary.

Section 1995, Mississippi Code of 1942, reads as follows: 'Every person who shall be an accessory to any felony, before the fact, shall be deemed and considered a principal, and shall be indicted and punished as such; and this whether the principal have been previously convicted or not.'

The evidence fully justified a finding by the jury that appellant and Roberts formulated a common design to commit the crime and that prior to the actual entrance into the storehouse of the Forrest County Co-op these parties had an understanding concerning the place to be entered, how entry was to be gained, what was to be taken therefrom, the time of entry, and the amount Roberts was to profit per sack of feed. It was not necessary that the State prove appellant was physically present at the time of the commission of the crime. Noble v. State, 221 Miss. 339, 72 So.2d 687; 77 C.J.S. Robbery Sec. 32, p. 470; Wince v. State, 206 Miss. 189, 39 So.2d 882; West v. State, 233 Miss. 730, 103 So.2d 437.

Appellant filed motions to quash the indictment and the venire on the ground of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand and petit juries which constituted a denial of due process of law and equal protection of the law. After a hearing on these motions they were overruled, and appellant assigns this action of the trial court as error. The two motions were heard together and present but one question: Did the evidence require a finding by the trial court that there was a systematic exclusion of Negroes from the juries?

The hearing on this motion was rather lengthy and numerous witnesses were introduced, including nearly all the officials of Forrest County. In summary, the testimony showed as follows. The poll books of the county show 'W' and 'C' following the names of registered voters to indicate white and colored. There are Negroes registered and qualified to vote in the County, but the number was not shown. According to the last census, Forrest County had a total population of 45,055, of which 12,965 were non-white. The distribution of the white and non-white population among the five supervisors' districts and the various voting precincts was not shown; nor was distribution between urban and rural shown. The jury boxes are filled from a list of registered voters by the five members of the board of supervisors from their several districts from the registered voters who are not disqualified for jury service. 1 The jury box is filled without regard to race. For many years Negroes have been summoned for jury service, but the proportion of white and colored was not shown. Negroes were summoned for jury service at the term of court preceding the one during which appellant was tried but it was not shown whether any were summoned for grand or petit jury service for the term during which appellant was tried. Negroes have served on juries in Forrest County in the recent past.

The motions alleged appellant is a Negro. It was traversed. No proof was offered that appellant was in fact a Negro. We deal with the case as if this was shown.

It cannot be lightly concluded that the officials of Forrest County have engaged in discriminatory practices by systematically excluding Negroes from jury service, and the burden was upon appellant to establish his allegations by proof in accordance with legal standards. Akins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398, 65 S.Ct. 1276, 89 L.Ed. 1692; cf. Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866. And, while it was not shown in the present case that there were no Negroes on the grand or petit juries which indicted and tried appellant, if it be assumed there were not, the fact that Negroes were not included in a particular jury is not enough to establish that there was actual discrimination because of race. Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497, (see cases therein cited). The facts as already stated are substantially without conflict, and any conflicts in the testimony were factual issues to be resolved by the trial court. Akins v. Texas, supra. Of the thirteen persons called by appellant in regard to whether Negroes were summoned to serve on juries, eight testified positively that Negroes had been so summoned over an extended period of time up to and including the July 1960 term of court. (Appellant was tried at the next term of court which convened in November 1960). None of the witnesses testified that Negroes had not been summoned. Some testified that Negroes had served...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Winters v. Cook
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 28, 1973
    ...1272 (1955); Walker v. State, 229 Miss. 540, 91 So.2d 548 (1956); Cameron v. State, 233 Miss. 404, 102 So.2d 355 (1958); Kennard v. State, 242 Miss. 691, 128 So.2d 572, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 869, 82 S.Ct. 111, 7 L.Ed.2d 66 (1961); Gordon v. State, 243 Miss. 750, 140 So.2d 88 (1962); Wilson......
  • Henry v. Collins, 42759
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • December 2, 1963
    ...S.Ct. 1276, 89 L.Ed. 1692, and cases there cited. Cf. also Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866; Kennard v. State, 242 Miss. 691, 128 So.2d 572. This Court in Cameron v. State, 233 Miss. 404, 102 So.2d 355, observed that it was a matter of common knowledge that the s......
  • Wilson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 26, 1962
    ...U.S. 398, 65 S.Ct. 1276, 89 L.Ed. 1692; Cf. Hernandez v. State of Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866. See also Kennard v. State, Miss., 128 So.2d 572, not yet reported in the State Reports, and the authorities there cited. In the case of Johnson v. State, 223 Miss. 56, 76 So.2d......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 13, 2020
    ...(citing McGowan v. State , 375 So. 2d 987, 990 (Miss. 1979) ; Pilcher v. State , 296 So. 2d 682 (Miss. 1974) ; Kennard v. State , 242 Miss. 691, 128 So. 2d 572 (Miss. 1961) ).¶19. At trial, the State produced Johnson's confession to Detective Petit. Johnson told Detective Petit that Roderic......
  • 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