May v. State, 44919
| Decision Date | 10 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 44919,44919 |
| Citation | 211 So.2d 845 |
| Parties | Durwood MAY v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Walker & Sullivan, Mendenhall, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty.Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst.Atty.Gen. and Laurence Y. Mellen, Sp.Asst.Atty.Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
This is the second appearance of this case in this Court, the first being reported in May v. State, 199 So.2d 635 (Miss.1967). We suggest a reading of that opinion for a full understanding of the facts involved. We reversed the conviction of the appellant for murder and remanded the case for another trial.
On a retrial, the appellant was again convicted in the Circuit Court of Simpson County and sentenced to life imprisonment. From this conviction, he appeals. We affirm.
On the new trial, the evidence which was ruled inadmissible on the first appeal, including photographs mentioned in the original opinion, was not introduced. Otherwise, the evidence was substantially the same as in the first trial. There are only three assignments of error on this appeal, only one of which we deem necessary to discuss.
The second assignment is that the lower court erred in allowing the cross-examination of appellant and rebuttal testimony about an allegedly remote previous difficulty and the details thereof. This has to do with the difficulty mentioned in the report of the original case relative to the appellant allegedly having shot at his wife and younger child while they were driving away from home in an automobile. The first case settled this issue by holding such evidence admissible. May v. State, Miss., 199 So.2d 635, 641 (1967).
The third assignment of error is that the lower court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty and in not granting a peremptory instruction for appellant. The argument under this assignment is based upon the rule in Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 147 So. 481 (1933). The same argument was made in the previous appearance of the case here and was settled by that decision. Id., 199 So.2d at 642.
The first assignment is that the court erred in allowing the state to prove and argue that appellant maintained his silence after the shooting and gave no explanation thereof in spite of the fact that his defense at the trial was that he shooting was an accident. The state did prove by some of the officers that when the appellant was arrested and in their custody he made no statement as to how the shooting occurred and consequently did not claim at that time that it was an accident.
Because he was under no duty then to speak and because his right to remain silent is protected by both the State and Federal Constitutions, the introduction of this testimony in chief would create a serious problem and, according to numerous cases, would be reversible error. E.g., Pierce v. State of Nebraska, 173 Neb. 319, 113 N.W.2d 333 (1962); Lee v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 220, 185 S.W.2d 978 (1945); Willson v. Commonwealth, 160 Va. 913, 168 S.E. 344 (1933); Goodman v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 589, 285 S.W. 821 (1926); Ripley v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 489, 126 S.W. 586 (1910).
However, appellant took the stand to testify in his own behalf. Of course, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Russell
...facts. State v. Burt (1969), 107 N.J.Super. 390, 258 A.2d 711; Sharp v. United States (C.A. 5, 1969), 410 F.2d 969; May v. State (Miss., 1968), 211 So.2d 845; State v. Zappia (1969), 8 Ariz.App. 549, 448 P.2d 119, cert. den., Zappia v. Arizona (1969), 396 U.S. 861, 90 S.Ct. 132, 24 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Keys v. State
...been found in Gann's possession, it was cured when Gann himself voluntarily testified that such, indeed, had been the case. May v. State, 211 So.2d 845 (Miss.1968); Goodman v. State, 158 Miss. 269, 130 So. 285 (1930); Blowe v. State, 130 Miss. 112, 93 So. 577, 24 A.L.R. 1429 (1922).' 234 So......
-
Cooley v. State
...v. State, supra, and did not constitute a violation of Cooley's rights under Miranda. This Court dealt with the question in May v. State, 211 So.2d 845 (Miss. 1968). In May this Court The first assignment is that the court erred in allowing the state to prove and argue that appellant mainta......
-
Readus v. State, 47060
...to be competent. (199 So.2d at 641). The case was reversed and on retrial appellant was again convicted of murder and in May v. State, 211 So.2d 845 (Miss.1968), the Court held that testimony about the prior shooting was admissible. The Court The second assignment is that the lower court er......