Roberts v. State, 51552

Decision Date05 December 1979
Docket NumberNo. 51552,51552
Citation379 So.2d 514
PartiesBarry Joe ROBERTS v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

J. W. Kellum, Sumner, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Calvin Coolidge Williams, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

LEE, Justice, for the Court:

Barry Joe Roberts was convicted in the Circuit Court of Tallahatchie County of manslaughter by culpable negligence and was sentenced to twenty (20) years in the Mississippi State Penitentiary. He appeals and assigns two (2) errors in the trial below.

I.

Did the trial court err in overruling appellant's motion for a peremptory instruction of not guilty?

In passing on this question, the Court considers all evidence favorable to the State, together with reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, and, if such evidence is sufficient to present a guilt question for the jury, the peremptory instruction should be refused. Warn v. State, 349 So.2d 1055 (Miss.1977).

On August 6, 1977, at approximately 7:00 p. m., Mrs. Mary Ella Bonner was driving her pickup truck in a southerly direction on Mississippi State Highway 35 between Charleston and Batesville. Two (2) other persons were riding in the cab of the truck with her, and five (5) children were riding in the bed of the truck. Appellant was driving an automobile in a northerly direction on said highway and, as the two vehicles approached each other, appellant's automobile ran off the east side of the highway, came back upon it and collided with the Bonner truck in the southbound lane of travel. Brenda Gail Bonner, ten-year-old daughter of Mrs. Mary Ella Bonner, sustained a broken neck in the collision and expired at the scene.

Mrs. Louise Goad, who operated a store which dispensed alcoholic beverages, testified that, at approximately 5:30 p. m. on the date of the accident, appellant purchased beer for himself and a companion and also a six-pack of beer to carry with them. She observed that appellant had been drinking excessively at that time.

Mr. E. J. Dungan, a former law enforcement officer, saw appellant at approximately 6:45 p. m. on said day, driving north on Highway 35 at a high rate of speed, which he estimated at ninety (90) miles per hour. He went to the scene of the accident, observed the position of the cars and debris, and that appellant's eyes were red. However, he did not testify that appellant was intoxicated.

Reverend W. T. Barkley and Margaret Barkley, his wife, were proceeding south on Highway 35 directly behind Mrs. Bonner's truck before, and at the time of, the collision. He said that appellant's car ran off the highway, turned sideways, came back upon it, turned sideways again, and collided with the Bonner truck in the southbound lane. He walked over to appellant's car and "It smelled like it was a beer truck wreck rather than a car." Mrs. Barkley corroborated her husband as to the details of the collision.

Mrs. Mary Ella Bonner testified that, as she was driving her truck south upon the highway, she saw appellant's car approaching at an extremely high rate of speed, the car left the highway, swerved back upon it, went into a spin, and collided with her truck in the southbound lane of travel.

Thomas McLeod, Mississippi State Highway patrolman, went to the scene for the purpose of investigating the collision. He detected the odor of alcohol on appellant, who was unstable in his walking, was glassy-eyed and appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. Officer McLeod asked him what he was drinking, and appellant replied, "Well, I have been drinking beer all afternoon." McLeod was of the opinion that appellant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired as a result of intoxication.

Appellant testified that he leaned over to pick up a tape for his tape player, which had fallen to the floorboard, and, in doing so, lost control of the vehicle, which resulted in the collision.

Culpable negligence, as defined by the Court, is negligence that is so gross and wanton as to evidence an utter disregard for the safety of human life. Smith v. State, 197 Miss. 802, 20 So.2d 701 (1945).

The fact that a person is intoxicated may be shown as a contributing factor to the collision. In the present case, it was the jury's prerogative to determine whether or not appellant's condition from drinking alcoholic beverages contributed to the tragedy, particularly since the highway patrolman testified that, in his opinion, appellant's driving ability was impaired by alcohol. Under the facts of this case, there was a question for the jury as to whether or not appellant's conduct was so gross and wanton as to come within the culpable negligence rule stated above.

II.

Did the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Thigpen v. Roberts
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1984
    ...convicted Roberts of manslaughter, and the judge sentenced him to 20 years in prison. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. Roberts v. State, 379 So.2d 514 (1979). It also refused Roberts leave to pursue state post-conviction Roberts then brought the present habeas corpus action in the Un......
  • Gray v. State, 53525
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1983
    ...se, such negligence alone does not rise to a degree of culpable negligence so as to sustain a conviction of manslaughter. Roberts v. State, 379 So.2d 514 (Miss.1979); Gandy v. State, 373 So.2d 1042 (Miss.1979); Frazier v. State, 289 So.2d 690 (Miss.1974); and Cutshall v. State, 191 Miss. 76......
  • Culberson v. State, 03-DP-0009
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • July 25, 1990
  • Saik v. State, 52079
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 10, 1980
    ...if such evidence is sufficient to present a guilt question for the jury, the peremptory instruction should be refused. Roberts v. State, 379 So.2d 514 (Miss.1979); Minor v. State, 379 So.2d 495 (Miss.1979); Warn v. State, 349 So.2d 1055 There was strong evidence for the State that appellant......

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