Richardson v. State, 53873
| Decision Date | 17 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 53873,53873 |
| Parties | Christopher RICHARDSON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Smith, Downs, Ross, Trapp & Coleman, Corinth, J. Price Coleman, Jackson, for appellant.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen., by Carolyn B. Mills, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before WALKER, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and ROBERTSON, JJ.
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Alcorn County wherein the appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of attempted armed robbery and aggravated assault. The trial judge sentenced him to serve two 10-year terms, one for each offense, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The terms were to run concurrently. We reverse.
The undisputed evidence establishes that John Wesley McKenzie entered Dee's Grocery Store in Alcorn County on February 12, 1980. He pulled a .22 calibre pistol and announced: "This is a robbery." Macon Bynum, Jr., the owner of the store, then pulled a pistol. In an exchange of gunfire, Mr. Bynum's wife was shot in the hand and McKenzie was shot in the face. Both recovered.
The appellant is accused of being McKenzie's accomplice in the attempted robbery and aggravated assault. At Richardson's trial, McKenzie testified for the state. He stated that Richardson planned the crime and was to drive the getaway car.
Christopher Richardson took the stand on behalf of himself and denied any participation in the crime. He stated that on February 12, 1980, McKenzie asked him for a ride to the school to meet a girl. The appellant took McKenzie to the school, which is approximately 150 yards from Dee's Grocery. Although he saw no girl, he let McKenzie out and drove on home.
After hearing all of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Mr. Richardson perfected an appeal to this Court and assigns as error the following:
(1) Under the facts of this case, uncorroborated testimony of accomplice does not support verdict, therefore, defendant is entitled to directed verdict or, in the alternative, judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and
(2) Trial court erred in not allowing defendant's counsel to testify as to prior inconsistent statement of chief prosecuting witness.
The defendant's first assignment of error is without merit. Although the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice should be viewed with great caution, it is sufficient to support a guilty verdict.
In the second assignment of error the appellant complains that the trial court refused to allow his attorney to testify as to a prior inconsistent statement of the prosecution's chief witness, John Wesley McKenzie.
On cross-examination John Wesley McKenzie denied making the statement that "I am going to tell it the way it is best for me." The defense attorney then asked permission to testify that McKenzie had made this inconsistent statement.
In Gradsky v. State, 243 Miss. 379, 137 So.2d 820 (1962), this Court, holding that it was reversible error to refuse to allow the defendant's attorney to testify, stated:
Sec. 26, Miss. Constitution 1890, guarantees that "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a right * * * to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor * * *", and this means, he may have his attorney, as well as other witnesses, summoned to give evidence in his favor, when his attorney has evidence vital to his defense. Moreover, accused cannot be denied this right on the ground that it may embarrass the attorney or violate etiquette of the court. Adams v. State, 202 Miss. 68, 30 So.2d 593, is not adverse to the holding in this case. We have pointed out in the case of Brooks v. State, 209 Miss. 150, 46 So.2d 94, that "Constitutional rights in serious criminal cases rise above mere rules of procedure." The court may admonish an attorney when it appears that he knew in advance that he would be called upon to testify in a case, 1 for taking active part in the trial of a case, but the court cannot refuse an accused the right to introduce competent evidence in his favor because it may appear that an attorney has violated an ethical rule. Miller v. Urban, 195 A. 193, 118 A.L.R....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. State, 53754
...Its current vitality is attested by the Court's recent decisions in Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 837 (Miss.1983); and Richardson v. State, 436 So.2d 790, 791 (Miss.1983). See also, my dissenting opinion in Hill v. State, 432 So.2d 427, 443-451 This principle has force for a more fundamenta......
-
House v. State
...procedural niceties where such is necessary to avoid the possibility of a serious miscarriage of justice. See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 436 So.2d 790, 791 (Miss.1983); Hooten v. State, 427 So.2d 1388, 1391 (Miss.1983); Glover v. State, 419 So.2d 588 (Miss.1982); Horton v. State, 408 So.2d......
-
West v. State
...favor because it may appear that an attorney has violated an ethical rule. 243 Miss. at 384, 137 So.2d at 821. See also Richardson v. State, 436 So.2d 790 (Miss.1983); Pittman v. Currie, 414 So.2d 423 In Currie, supra, the Court said: [A] lawyer should not testify unless circumstances arise......
-
Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. Rubin
...Fair Stores, New Castle, Inc. v. Howard, supra, at 409. See, also, Gradsky v. State (1962), 243 Miss. 379, 137 So.2d 820; Richardson v. State (Miss.1983), 436 So.2d 790; VI Wigmore on Evidence, supra, at A trial court's refusal to allow an attorney to testify has been held to be prejudicial......