Myers v. State, 46404
Decision Date | 29 November 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 46404,46404 |
Citation | 254 So.2d 891 |
Parties | Marvin MYERS, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Farese, Farese, Jones & Farese, Ashland, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by John M. Kinard, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Appellant, Marvin Myers, Jr., was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County of the murder of Larry Cox. Inasmuch as the jury found appellant 'guilty as charged', the trial judge imposed the death penalty.
Because of appellant's indigence, the trial judge on November 11, 1970, appointed Hon. W. E. Wilroy, Jr. and Hon. William Hagan of the DeSoto County bar to represent appellant, Marvin Myers, Jr., and his younger brother, Arthur Myers, on this indictment. The crime was committed on July 26, 1970, and Wilroy and Hagan were appointed to represent all six defendants at the preliminary hearing on July 28, 1970. Motion for severance was granted and Marvin Myers, Jr., was the first to be tried for this offense. Farese, Farese, Jones and Farese, attorneys of Ashland, Mississippi, entered the case when it was appealed.
In their assignment of errors, appellate counsel listed 37 alleged errors. Only 11 of these alleged errors were briefed and argued on appeal. In disposing of this appeal, it is only necessary for us to discuss and decide three of these assigned errors.
About midway through the trial, during a recess, the court-appointed attorneys, Wilroy and Hagan, made an oral motion for permission to withdraw as counsel for the defendant. This motion was made in the judge's chambers to the trial judge in the presence of the district attorney. The accused, Marvin Myers, Jr., was not present when the motion was made or when it was argued. The six grounds for their motion were listed, as follows:
These were serious accusations against appellant made and argued by his own court-appointed counsel out of his presence. He was not given an opportunity to explain his actions or present his views. Even though there might have been no sound basis for his distrust of, and lack of confidence in, his court-appointed attorneys, nevertheless, he was entitled to be heard by the trial judge. This was a very important and crucial stage of the case to the appellant and involved serious charges against him by his own counsel. The trial judge should not have heard this motion to withdraw out of the presence of the defendant-appellant. This was a fatal error and requires a general reversal of the judgment of the trial court.
We also have serious doubts whether the tests imposed in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), were met in the district attorney's examination of prospective jurors as to their religious and conscientious scruples against the imposition of the death penalty. We feel that the trial judge and the district attorney were sincerely trying to comply with Witherspoon. However, the trial judge excused six prospective jurors for cause, with this rather perfunctory and pro forma general questioning of the prospective jurors by the district attorney:
'JUROR (Mrs. Herbert E. Dixon): No, sir.
'THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY (Mr. Finch): And you are the same way?
'JUROR (Edna Plunkett): Yes, sir.
'THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY (Mr. Finch): And you are the same way?
'JUROR (Olivia Powers): Yes, sir.
'THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY (Mr. Finch): Everyone that raised their hand, you do have, and I say again when I ask you, in a proper case, that is, regardless of how coldblooded it might be, you still would not render the death penalty regardless of how coldblooded it might be, and that's in regard to everybody else that raised their hand?
The Supreme Court of the United States in Witherspoon said this:
'Specifically, we hold that a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction.' (Emphais added). 391 U.S. at 521-522, 88 S.Ct. at 1776-1777, 20 L.Ed.2d at 784-785.
In trying to be helpful to the trial courts in construing Witherspoon, this Court, by way of dicta, in Armstrong v. State, 214 So.2d 589 (Miss.1968), attempted to outline one method by which the trial judge could satisfy himself that the tests imposed in Witherspoon had been met. Although Armstrong was indicted for murder, the jury found him guilty of manslaughter and the Court sentenced him to twenty years in the penitentiary. We affirmed the conviction and sentence in Armstrong. In Armstrong, with our eyes focused on Witherspoon, we said:
(Emphasis added). 214 So.2d at 593.
Of course, it is not mandatory for the trial judge to ask the questions about the death penalty, but it is preferable. When it becomes apparent that more detailed questioning is required to determine the true feelings of the prospective jurors about bringing in a verdict that would mean the death penalty, it would be better for a neutral person, namely, the trial judge, to ask the questions. After all, it is the trial judge's decision whether to sustain or reject challenges for cause, and he must satisfy himself as to the true feelings of the jurors on the death penalty.
Appellate counsel complain that the trial court did not poll the jury nor did it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. State, 93-DP-00821-SCT.
...his retained attorney was allowed to withdraw, and Mr. Jones and Mr. Gandy were re-appointed as his counsel. Jerome cites Myers v. State, 254 So.2d 891, 893 (Miss.1971), as his sole authority that he had a right to be present at such a s 116. Upon Jerome's indictment for capital murder on N......
-
Irving v. Hargett, WC 79-75-OS-O.
...convict him although the verdict of the jury may result in the death penalty's being inflicted upon the defendant. See also Myers v. States, 254 So.2d 891 (Miss.1971). Since the prospective jurors could not or would not follow the law and evidence in the case, notwithstanding their personal......
-
Irving v. State
...20 L.Ed.2d at 784-785. Following Witherspoon, this Court considered the procedure to be employed by trial judges in Myers v. State, 254 So.2d 891 (Miss.1971). That procedure " 'The proper method of bringing the death penalty to the attention of the special veniremen is for the trial judge t......
-
Myers v. State, 46626
...indictment. The latter's conviction was reversed and the case against him remanded by this Court for retrial as reported in Myers v. State, 254 So.2d 891 (Miss.1971). According to the evidence for the prosecution in the case now before us, Arthur Myers, the appellant in this case, in the co......