Sadler v. State, No. 53058

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Writing for the Court: SMITH; PATTERSON
• Citation: 407 So.2d 95
• Docket Number: No. 53058
• Decision Date: 09 December 1981
• Parties: Sammy SADLER v. STATE of Mississippi.

Page 95

407 So.2d 95 Sammy SADLER
v.
STATE of Mississippi. No. 53058. Supreme Court of Mississippi. Dec. 9, 1981.

Page 96

Burdine & Austin, Curtis H. Austin, Columbus, for appellant.

Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Marvin L. White, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before SMITH, WALKER and BOWLING, JJ.

SMITH, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

Sammy Sadler was indicted for the crime of aggravated assault upon a law enforcement officer. He was tried upon that charge in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, was convicted, and sentenced to serve a term of 28 years imprisonment. He has appealed here, assigning several grounds for reversal.

The incident, which gave rise to Sadler's indictment and conviction, occurred on Sunday, December 7, 1980. It appears from the evidence that Sadler had gone to the home of one Griffin, where he spoke with his "wife", Barbara "Tiny" Perkins. After a quarrel with Sadler, she and her children had moved into the Griffin home. Appellant had been drinking, and after some conversation, obtained a shotgun from the trunk of his car and threatened to kill Tiny and her children. This conduct on Sadler's part was induced by his belief that Tiny was engaged in a relationship with a new boyfriend, one Harris.

When Sadler approached Griffin's house with the gun, Griffin kept him from coming into the house. The supposed boyfriend, Harris, and Tiny ran out the back door and hid in the woods. Meanwhile Tiny had dispatched her son to a neighbor's house to call the police. Having done this, Tiny returned to the Griffin house.

In response to the call, Deputy Sheriff Jimmy Covington was officially informed that Sadler was at the Griffin home threatening to kill Tiny and her children with a gun. Deputy Covington, answering the call, drove his official automobile into the Griffin driveway where he saw Sadler in the yard with the shotgun in his hands. Drawing his service revolver, Deputy Covington ordered Sadler to put the gun down. Griffin also asked Sadler to put the gun down. Sadler refused and Deputy Covington repeated his order to Sadler. Sadler continued to refuse to drop his gun. As Griffin backed away from Sadler, Sadler fired the gun in the direction of Griffin's house. Griffin's wife yelled while standing in the door, "Oh my God I've been shot" and fell to the floor. When this happened, Deputy Covington fired one shot over appellant's head and appellant began to run away. Covington fired two more shots at appellant as he disappeared around the corner of the house. Covington then put his revolver on the seat of the patrol car and

Page 97

began taking his shotgun out of the car. However, before he was able to get out of the car with his gun, Sadler levelled his shotgun at Deputy Covington and fired at him from the corner of the house. The blast from Sadler's gun struck Deputy Covington in the face and on the hands, seriously wounding Deputy Covington and causing him to lose the sight of one eye.

Among the alleged errors assigned is that the trial court should have sustained Sadler's motion for a new trial on the ground that the jury verdict was not supported by sufficient credible evidence.

Considering the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the state and accepting as true the evidence supporting or tending to support the verdict, with all inferences supportive of the verdict that reasonably may be drawn therefrom, we find no merit in this contention. Glass v. State, 278 So.2d 384 (Miss.1973). In Spikes v. State, 302 So.2d 250 (Miss.1974), this Court said:

On appeal, in this situation, in passing upon the sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict, this Court must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict. Murphree v. State, 228 So. 2d 599 (Miss.1969). (302 So.2d at 251).

The resolution of such conflicts as there were in the evidence in this case, was peculiarly for the jury. In Hankins v. State, 288 So.2d 866 (Miss.1974), it was said:

In Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561, 132 So. 563 (1931), we stated:

We invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not reverse criminal cases where there is a straight issue of fact, or a conflict in the facts; juries are impaneled for the very purpose of passing upon such questions...