Matula v. State, 45218

Decision Date31 March 1969
Docket NumberNo. 45218,45218
Citation220 So.2d 833
PartiesJoseph J. MATULA v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Rex K. Jones, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

SMITH, Justice:

At the November, 1967 term of the Circuit Court of Forrest County the grand jury indicted appellant Joseph J. Matula jointly with one Joseph R. Brown. The indictment charged that Matula and Brown knowingly did 'feloniously conceal, receive or relieve a felon, to-wit, Thomas S. Carroll' or aid or assist him in an attempted burglary of the Capri Lounge, with the intent to enable Carroll to escape or to avoid indictment, trial, conviction or punishment.

Carroll's conviction of the attempted burglary was affirmed by this Court as reported in 215 So.2d 871 (Miss.1968).

Severance was granted and Matula and Brown were tried separately. Brown's conviction was affirmed as reported in 217 So.2d 521 (Miss.1969).

Matula was convicted and sentenced to serve a term of 3 years in the penitentiary. He appeals from that conviction.

The evidence adduced at Matula's trial approximates, in most respects, that offered in the Carroll and Brown prosecutions. However, the case against Matula differs in significant and distinguishing particulars from that in Brown, supra, and the evidence that Matula acted knowingly, was entirely circumstantial. The trial court's refusal to direct a verdict of acquittal is assigned as error. The prosecution recognized the circumstantial nature of the case against Matula and the instructions requested by it were based correctly upon the proposition that, in order to warrant conviction, evidence of Matula's guilt must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.

As in carroll and Brown, supra, it is beyond question that Carroll, Brown and Matula arrived together at the Stables, a motel at or near Hattiesburg, in a pickup truck with a camper body which belonged to Brown. They obtained a room there together for the night on which Carroll attempted to burglarize the Capri Lounge.

There is no evidence that Matula participated in the actual attempt at burglary nor any to indicate his presence in the vicinity of the Capri Lounge at 1:30 or 2:00 o'clock in the morning when Carroll was detected attempting to break into that establishment.

An indispensable element of the crime charged against Matula is that he acted with guilty knowledge. Crosby v. State, 179 Miss. 149, 175 So. 180 (1937).

In 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 31(3) (1961) it is stated:

Ordinarily one is not guilty of a crime unless he is aware of the existence of all those facts which make his conduct criminal. Without guilty knowledge criminal intent cannot exist.

Also, in 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 96 (1961) it is stated:

To render one liable as an accessary after the fact he must have had actual knowledge, at the time he relieved or assisted the principal, that the latter had committed a felony, or was an accessary before the fact to a felony; and such knowledge must be personal as distinguished from constructive. Thus, it has been held that if accused had actual knowledge of facts which would give him good reason to believe the person assisted to be guilty of the felony, this will be sufficient.

On this point, it is undisputed that he was traveling with Carroll and Brown, was with them on the day before and left with them the day after Carroll's crime. Also, he was with Brown when they were arrested at Wiggins.

Perhaps the strongest evidence bearing upon this aspect of the case was testimony of an employee of the motel where the men had obtained a room on the day preceding the attempted burglary. In substance, this was to the effect that the three men had arrived there about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of September 15 in Brown's camper truck. Brown paid for the room in advance. The men went to the cabin assigned them, saying that they were tired from their trip from Texas. Shortly afterward, Matula and Carroll came to the motel tavern and drank some beer. They left the tavern about 4:30 after remaining approximately an hour and a half. At 8:00 o'clock that evening they had returned and all three of the men again left the tavern. About 30 minutes later, or at about 8:30, Brown returned but Carroll and Matula did not. The witness did not see any of them again until about 2:00 o'clock on the next afternoon. At that time, she observed all three in the camper truck on U. S. Highway 49, South, heading toward Wiggins with Matula driving. The next appearance of Matula was at a service station in Wiggins where he and Brown were accosted by officers. Brown was questioned by the officers but Matula was not, and he made no statement, incriminating or otherwise.

When the watchman discovered Carroll attempting to break into the Capri Lounge, Carroll had sustained a cut on his writs as he fled the scene. Nothing is known of his whereabouts from that time (between 1:30 and 2:00 o'clock in the morning) until shortly after noon when he staggered, bloody and fainting, into a florist shop on U. S. Highway 49, South of Hattiesburg. The florist placed Carroll in a truck and started with him to a hospital. But on the way Carroll revived and asked to be and was taken to the motel instead. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Matula was present at any stage of this episode. In any event, Carroll arrived at the hospital at Wiggins about 2:30 that afternoon accompanied by Brown. Again Matula was not shown to have been present and the record is silent as to his whereabouts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1992
    ...accused's association with others. Davis v. State, 586 So.2d at 821; Vickery v. State, 535 So.2d 1371, 1379 (Miss.1988); Matula v. State, 220 So.2d 833, 836 (Miss.1969). One felon's guilt does not in fact and may not in law suggest the guilt of another. See Rule 401, Miss.R.Ev. We regard it......
  • Goff v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 28, 2009
    ...other than that of guilt must be excluded in order to convict. Sanders v. State, 286 So.2d 825, 828 (Miss.1973); Matula v. State, 220 So.2d 833, 836 (Miss.1969). Also where the evidence is purely circumstantial, the trial court must grant a "two-theory" instruction. Johnson v. State, 347 So......
  • Buckley v. State, 57067
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • July 29, 1987
    ...completed. Harrel v. State, 39 Miss. 702, 80 Am.Dec. 95 (1861). Guilty knowledge is an indispensible element of the crime. Matula v. State, 220 So.2d 833 (Miss.1969). While one cannot be both a principal and an accessory after the fact, Crosby v. State, 179 Miss. 149, 175 So. 180 (1937), on......
  • Davis v. State, 90-KA-0477
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 18, 1991
    ...is neither a recognized nor tolerable concept in our criminal law. Pryor v. State, 239 So.2d 911, 912 (Miss.1970); Matula v. State, 220 So.2d 833, 836 (Miss.1969). Davis strenuously argues that he never possessed or controlled guns, and in a certain sense this is so. No proof suggests he ev......
  • 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