Pryor v. State, 50221

Citation349 So.2d 1063
Decision Date21 September 1977
Docket NumberNo. 50221,50221
PartiesLeroy PRYOR v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Liston, Crull & Gibson, Winona, Franklin J. George, Grenada, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen A. Gilfoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

WALKER, Justice, for the Court:

Appellant, Leroy Pryor, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Grenada County, Mississippi, on charges of aiding the attempted escape of a person confined for a felony offense in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-9-29 (1972). On appeal, Pryor contends the state failed to establish all the elements of the crime charged and that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

In Vickers v. State, 215 So.2d 432 (Miss.1958), this Court held that an element of the offense which must be proven is that the prisoner alleged to have been aided was, in fact, confined due to a felony charge. It is proof of this element of the crime which Pryor challenges.

Specifically, it is alleged that the evidence was insufficient to show that the prisoner, Willie White, Jr., was confined on a felony charge, and in the alternative, if the evidence was legally sufficient, it was erroneously admitted.

The issues presented on appeal are:

(1) Is oral testimony that an affidavit was sworn out charging a person (Willie White, Jr.) with burglary of a dwelling, that White was bound over to await grand jury action on that charge, and that White was present in jail at the time of the attempted escape, sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that Willie White, Jr. was confined for a felony within the meaning of Mississippi Code Annotated section 37-9-29 (1972)?

(2) Was it error to allow two witnesses to testify whose names were omitted from the list of state witnesses furnished to the defendant on order of the court?

At trial, the state failed to produce documentary evidence conclusively that the prisoner, Willie White, Jr. was confined because of a felony charge on the date in question. There was, however, oral testimony to that effect.

The court clerk of the City of Grenada Police Court testified that an affidavit was sworn out before him charging Willie White, Jr. with burglary of a dwelling. He further testified that court records showed White was placed in the Grenada City jail the same day, and that five days later he was present at a hearing in City Court where White was bound over to await Grand Jury action on the same charge.

The Police Court justice of Grenada testified that White appeared before him on burglary charges and that he bound White over to await Grand Jury action. He also testified that the usual custom and practice is that upon being bound over, the person is transported on that same day to the Grenada County jail.

Willie White, Jr., himself, as well as others, testified that he was present in the Grenada County jail on the date of the attempted escape.

It is well established in Mississippi that a jury, as the finder of fact, is entitled to consider not only facts as testified to by witnesses, but all inferences that may be reasonably and logically deduced from the facts in evidence. Cameron v. Hootsell, 229 Miss. 80, 90 So.2d 195 (1956).

Here, the evidence shows an affidavit was sworn out charging Willie White, Jr. with a felony offense, he was bound over to the Grand Jury on that charge, and he was present in the Grenada County jail when the attempted escape occurred.

Based on the preceding facts, the jury could reasonably conclude that White was confined in the Grenada County jail on a felony charge on the date in question.

Prior to trial the defendant requested and received an order for the production of evidence which, among other things, required production of "the names and addresses of all witnesses expected to be called to testify in the cause by the State of Mississippi." The names were to be furnished before 5:00 p. m., February 1, 1977. The state furnished a list of witnesses, but the names of the justice and court clerk of the Grenada Police court were omitted.

At trial on February 4, 1977, the state attempted to put on these two witnesses. Each time the defense objected to the testimony because they were not on the list provided by the state. It should be noted that at no time did the defendant object because of the best evidence rule or other grounds. Thus, the question on appeal is limited to whether there was error in admissibility due to omission of the names from the list of witnesses. Miss. Cent. R. Co. v. Robinson, 106 Miss. 896, 64 So. 838 (1914).

As pointed out recently, Mississippi, unlike some other states, has no statute requiring the state to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Burney v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1987
    ...instructed as to the law and heard the testimony of the witnesses. It was up to the jury to decide this issue. In Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Miss.1977), this Court It is well established in Mississippi that a jury, as the finder of fact, is entitled to consider not only facts as ......
  • Robinson v. State, 56601
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1987
    ...going to let it be marked." This comment requires some examination. In Spots v. State, 427 So.2d 127 (Miss.1983), citing Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063 (Miss.1977), this Court listed four factors which, at that time, were to be considered before reversal of a trial court's decision based on......
  • Brown v. State, 58009
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1988
  • Murrell v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1995
    ...to infer that the officer did feel pain when Murrell was throwing him to the ground and choking him. This Court has held in Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063 (Miss.1977), that a jury, as fact finder, is entitled to consider not only facts testified to by witnesses but all inferences that may b......
  • 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