Poole v. State, 42555
| Decision Date | 04 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 42555,42555 |
| Citation | 150 So.2d 429,246 Miss. 442 |
| Parties | Julius Olin POOLE v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
James W. Lee, Forest, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Julius Olin Poole, appellant, and his brother were jointly indicted in the Circuit Court of Newton County, Mississippi for the larceny of $200 in money from one J. B. Blackwell. Appellant was tried separately, found guilty, and was sentenced to serve four years in the state penitentiary.
On Saturday, November 25, 1961 J. B. Blackwell was serving a 60-day jail sentence for public drunkenness. He was used around the jail to help the jailer clean up and was in such favor with the sheriff that he was allowed to leave the jail on Saturday mornings and return on Monday mornings. A son of Blackwell had been killed in an accident, there had been an administration of his estate, and Blackwell had a check for $436.89 drawn on the administrator of the estate as his distributive share of the estate. When he was released from jail, he was unsuccessful in cashing the check until he obtained the endorsement of J. B. Everett, a local attorney, who knew Blackwell. Blackwell received several $100 bills when he cashed the check.
On Sunday Blackwell was at the home of his mother where his mother saw him handling and counting the money and putting it in what he called a secret place in his billfold. From the record, there is no question that Blackwell had this money on him when he left his mother's house that afternoon about four o'clock, right after he had counted the money, telling his mother that he would be back at six o'clock. That night shortly after midnight, his body was found where he had been run over by a hit-and-run driver, later determined to be one Teal, a resident of Meridian.
There was evidence by two officers who searched Blackwell's body that there was no money on his person when his body was found. On the 30th of November, three days later, Mrs. Hubert Valentine, an employee of the deputy sheriff's office, testified that appellant bought a tag for his 1950 Ford and paid for it out of a $100 bill.
On the cross-examination of Mrs. Blackwell, this question was asked: It is a fact, isn't it, that your son thought a lot of these Poole boys, Olin Poole and his brother, James, isn't it? A. Well, I think he did. I don't know. It didn't even know them. Q. You didn't know anything about what transpired out there after he left your home, did you? A. No sir, I do not. As to a question about how much money he had, she had previously testified that he got $436, she thought. She saw him count it out and put it in a billfold in a secret place.
Sometime in February, 1962 appellant was picked up by the officers on the lookout investigation of a bank robbery at Lake, Mississippi. A previous investigation had apparently established some ground of suspicion of appellant in connection with the Blackwell case, and he was questioned about it at the time he was questioned about the bank robbery. He gave a free and voluntary confession of taking all but $60 of the money out of Blackwell's billford while Blackwell was drunk and asleep on the couch at appellant's house, where Blackwell had been a frequent and welcome visitor. The court held that the confession was free and voluntarily given, that no inducements were offered or threats of any kind made against the appellant.
The appellant took the witness stand himself, on his own behalf, and testified to practically the same things as were outlined in the confession, except that he said he took the money to keep, knowing that someone else would get it, and that he got scared after everything happened and wouldn't give it back. He said that he had gotten $214 out of Blackwell's pocket, which included two $100 bills, one of which he had used in buying his car tag.
When the sheriff was on the stand, at the point when they were to introduce the confession out of the hearing of the jury, the defense attorney objected to the admission of the confession on the ground that the state had not sufficiently proved the corpus delicti without the assistance of the confession, stating that the testimony that had been introduced at this point was not sufficient to make corroborating evidence which will allow the introduction of the confession.
The question here is: Is there sufficient evidence at this point to prove the corpus delicti that a larceny had been committed?
If the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. State, 97-DP-00566-SCT.
...Brooks v. State, 178 Miss. 575, 173 So. 409 (1937)). See also Miskelley v. State, 480 So.2d 1104, 1107-08 (Miss.1985); Poole v. State, 246 Miss. 442, 150 So.2d 429 (1963). In these cases it is not the order of proof which is crucial but the rule that a confession may not be treated as suffi......
-
Taylor v. State
...Brooks v. State, 178 Miss. 575, 173 So. 409 (1937). See also Miskelley v. State, 480 So.2d 1104, 1107-08 (Miss.1985); Poole v. State, 246 Miss. 442, 150 So.2d 429 (1963). In these cases it is not the order of proof which is crucial but the rule that a confession may not be treated as suffic......
-
Jamison v. State
...the basis of a criminal charge and (2) the existence of criminal agency as the cause of this act or result. Poole v. State, 246 Miss. 442, 446, 150 So.2d 429, 431 (1963). “Every element, criminal charge, and criminal agency must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 446, 150 So.2d 42......
-
Wilcher v. State
...of slaying, together with the confessions, established the corpus delicti of the statutory crime of kidnapping. See: Poole v. State, 150 So.2d 429, 246 Miss. 442 (1963), cited in McCraw v. State, 260 So.2d 457 REFUSAL OF REQUESTED INSTRUCTION D-37 The Court refused requested defense Instruc......