Macon v. State

Decision Date04 June 1974
Docket NumberNo. 47932,47932
Citation295 So.2d 742
PartiesRobert Lewis MACON v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Ben F. Hilbun, Jr., Starkville, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Wayne Snuggs, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Chief Justice:

Robert Lewis Macon as convicted in the Circuit Court of Webster County of the crime of assault upon the sheriff with a deadly weapon in resisting arrest. From a judgment sentencing him to a seven-year term in the penitentiary, Macon appealed to this Court.

Sheriff W. E. Middleton of Webster County had a warrant issued in Calhoun County for the arrest of Macon. Previous efforts to apprehend him had failed. On the night in question, the sheriff and six other officers went to the home of Macon's father, and the sheriff and Highway Patrolman Woods went to the back door while Sheriff Mooneyhan of Calhoun County and his deputy went to the front door. Sheriff Middleton knocked on the back door, and Travis Macon, Robert's father, came to the door and asked the sheriff, 'What the damn hell I was doing back down there. . . .' The sheriff said, 'We have come after Robert and (have) the necessary papers. . . .' As the sheriff pulled the door back, Travis Macon pushed him down the steps. The sheriff caught Travis Macon's arms and held him up as they went backwards. Travis Macon was talking in a loud voice. Robert Macon then came to the door and said, 'Bill Middleton, you son-of-a-bitch, you've gone too damn far this time. I'm gonna blow your God-damn guts out.' At this point the sheriff heard the 'rack' of a gun and Robert Macon 'run the shotgun out the door in my face.' The sheriff pulled Travis Macon to a position between him and the shotgun. Patrolman Woods was hollering for Macon to drop the gun, and said if he didn't he, Woods, would start shooting. Robert Macon dropped the gun, ran back into the house and was later arrested and taken to jail.

The appeal raises the following questions:

1. Was the defendant entitled to an acquittal on the ground that he was deprived of a speedy trial?

The crime was committed on February 20, 1972. On April 8, 1972, Macon was bound over by the justice of the peace to await action of the grand jury. No grand jury was called for the scheduled May, 1972, term of the Circuit Court of Webster County, although section 158 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 requires that circuit court shall be held in each county at least twice in each year. The trial was held on December 2, 1972.

In Wells v. State, 288 So.2d 860 (Miss.1974), the Court stated that a balancing test necessarily compels the court to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis. The opinion identified the four factors which the court should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of a speedy trial: (1) length of delay; (2) reason for delay; (3) defendant's assertion of his rights; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Measured by these factors, the delay was not unreasonable.

The reason for the delay was that a grand jury was not called for the May term. The record is absent of any showing that defendant was prejudiced. Therefore, the Court holds that the defendant was not entitled to be discharged on the asserted ground that he did not receive a speedy trial. He argues, however, that the Constitution of Mississippi required the court to be held and he was thus denied a constitutional right to have a court convene a grand jury and be tried at the May term. We hold that the mere fact that the court did not call a grand jury at the May term does not entitle the defendant to be discharged.

2. Did the trial court err in failing to sustain defendant's demurrer to the indictment on the ground that the statute under which he was indicted is too vague and ambiguous?

Macon cites no authorities to support this argument. The statute is presumptively valid, and we hold that it is neither vague nor ambiguous and find no merit in this contention.

3. Did the court err in overruling defendant's objection to introduction of the warrant for Macon's arrest?

Defendant objected to the admissibility of the warrant on the ground (1) that the return date on the warrant was erroneous; (2) that the warrant was not returned to Calhoun County, and (3) that the warrant was not docketed by the sheriff of Webster County. The sheriff's return showed that he arrested Robert Macon and locked him in the Webster County jail. The return was dated February 19, 1972, which was sometime after the arrest. The validity of the arrest did not depend upon when the return was made. All of the grounds for objection concerned what happened after the arrest and did not affect the validity of the warrant or arrest.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Beckwith v. State, 91-IA-1207
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 16 Diciembre 1992
    ...State, 284 So.2d 57 (Miss.1973); Blackwell v. Sessums, 284 So.2d 38 (Miss.1973); Wells v. State, 288 So.2d 860 (Miss.1974); Macon v. State, 295 So.2d 742 (Miss.1974); Myers v. State, 296 So.2d 695 (Miss.1974); Page v. State, 295 So.2d 279 (Miss.1974); Edmond v. State, 312 So.2d 702 (Miss.19......
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 30 Abril 2015
    ...It was not an unreasonable delay in trial, appellant has not shown prejudice, and we find no merit in this contention.”); Macon v. State, 295 So.2d 742, 744 (Miss.1974) ( “The reason for the delay was that a grand jury was not called for the May term. The record is absent of any showing tha......
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 9 Marzo 2009
    ...was not an unreasonable delay in trial, appellant has not shown prejudice, and we find no merit in this contention."); Macon v. State, 295 So. 2d 742, 744 (Miss. 1974) ("The reason for the delay was that a grand jury was not called for the May term. The record is absent of any showing that ......
  • Cox v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 13 Enero 1978
    ...ab initio incapable of being discharged did not make the pistol any less deadly within the meaning of the statute. See Macon v. State, 295 So.2d 742, 745 (Miss.1974); Jackson v. State, 231 Md. 591, 594, 191 A.2d 432, 434 (1963). To hold otherwise would place an intolerable and unnecessary b......
  • 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