Massey v. State
| Decision Date | 09 October 1944 |
| Docket Number | 35683. |
| Citation | 19 So.2d 476 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MASSEY v. STATE. |
W T. Weir, of Philadelphia, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and R. O. Arrington, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.
Appellant was indicted and tried in the Circuit Court of Leake County on the charge of robbery and convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of ten years, from which judgment he prosecutes this appeal.
Appellant relies upon two grounds for reversal of the judgment: (1) the admission of the testimony of the witnesses Wallace and Ramsey, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
In July 1931, at his place of business, L. L. Murphy was robbed of $20 in cash and a watch worth thirty or forty dollars. Murphy testified that he was robbed at the point of a gun and that appellant was the robber. The defense was an alibi. For about thirteen years after the robbery appellant was not seen or heard of. He returned to the county a short while before the trial, which took place in April of the present year. Appellant testified that he did not commit the crime. The State introduced two witnesses besides Murphy, the man robbed, Wallace and Ramsey, who testified that on the afternoon of the robbery, but before it took place, they were with the appellant and that he wanted to borrow some money from Ramsey, who asked him how he was going to pay it back to which appellant replied that he was going to get it from some of these "joints around here". This testimony was objected to by the appellant and the objection was overruled. The objection was that it was evidence tending to show an intent to commit another crime and came within the general rule that evidence of another crime, or intent to commit another crime are inadmissible. There is a well established exception to the general rule and this case comes within it. On the trial of an indictment a previous crime threatened or committed by defendant can be proved "(a) where it is connected with the one charged in the indictment and sheds light upon the motive of defendant or (b) where it forms part of a chain of facts so intimately connected that the whole must be heard in order to interpret its several parts." Collier v. State, 106 Miss. 613, 64 So. 373, 375; Raines v. State, 81 Miss. 489, 33 So. 19; Dabney v. State, 82 Miss. 252, 33 So. 973; 22 C.J.S.Criminal Law, § 682, p. 1084. It was reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spears v. State
...they cannot be separated. Collier v. State, 106 Miss. 613, 64 So. 373. See also Clark v. State, 181 Miss. 455, 180, So. 602; Massey v. State, Miss., 19 So.2d 476 * * *.' 205 Miss. at 304-305, 38 So.2d at See also Seid v. State, 226 Miss. 886, 85 So.2d 585 (1956); Brown v. State, 224 Miss. 4......
-
Lee v. State
...224 Miss. 309, 80 So.2d 1 (1955) (collection of insurance in unrelated matters in prosecution for murder of insured wife); Massey v. State, 19 So.2d 476 (Miss.1944) (other The evidence of Lee's escape was admitted to show his conduct. In Hill v. State, 432 So.2d 427 (Miss.1983), we held tha......
-
State v. Saiz
...his repeated recommendations in planning it would make his statements admissible as evidence of his felonious intent. See Massey v. State, 19 So.2d 476 (Miss., 1944); People v. Henderson, 298 N.Y. 462, 84 N.E.2d 779 (1949); Opanowich v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 342, 83 S.E.2d 432 The second ca......
-
Lee v. State
...Underhill's Criminal Evidence, Fifth Ed., Vol. 1, p. 471, Sec. 207. See also Bangren v. State, 198 Miss. 359, 22 So.2d 360; Massey v. State, Miss.1944, 19 So.2d 476; State v. Sykes, 1905, 191 Mo. 62, 89 S.W. 851; Claxton v. State, 1928, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 345, 4 S.W.2d 542; Hazzard v. State, 193......