Sanders v. State
| Decision Date | 07 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 50000,50000 |
| Citation | 352 So.2d 822 |
| Parties | Gordy SANDERS v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Crawley & Ford, Michael H. Steele, Kosciusko, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before SMITH, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.
Appellant appeals from his conviction in the Circuit Court of Leake County on a charge of armed robbery. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
There are four assignments of error, all of which require a reversal. These errors are emphasized by the fact that appellant was convicted on the testimony of two admitted crooks. Appellant was a 66-year-old black man, having served at one time as deputy sheriff of Attala County. Each of the said two principal witnesses, as hereinbefore stated, had quite a criminal record in Attala County. The essence of appellant's defense was that he was "framed" by these witnesses.
During the early evening of March 16, 1976, one Floyd Harris, a 65-year-old black man living in Leake County near the community of Conway, was called to his front door. He was met with a 38-caliber pistol held by one of the witnesses, Marion F. (Jack) Gowan. Appellant was never seen by Harris. Gowan forced Harris to give him money that was hidden in Harris' home. Gowan was identified by Harris and subsequently arrested. On information supplied by Gowan appellant was arrested several days later.
Gowan's testimony was that he and appellant went to Harris' home in appellant's pickup driven by appellant; that he went into Harris' home and committed the robbery while appellant waited in the pickup.
On cross-examination attorney for appellant attempted to question Gowan regarding an alleged incident when appellant, while deputy sheriff, attempted to arrest Gowan at a hospital in Kosciusko, at which time marijuana was found in Gowan's shoe. The lower court sustained the State's objection to this evidence. Appellant's attorney argued then, and argues here, that this evidence was material on the question of the alleged motive of Gowan in testifying against appellant. We agree. It is clear that the credibility of a witness may be impeached on cross-examination by showing bias, prejudice, motive or hostility. Tate v. State, 317 So.2d 23 (Miss.1975); Palmer v. Clarksdale Hospital, 213 Miss. 601, 57 So.2d 473 (1952). Wide latitude is to be allowed on cross-examination to show bias or motive for the purpose of affecting credibility. Cody v. State, 167 Miss. 150, 148 So. 627 (1933). Although the extent of this cross-examination lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, its ruling will be reversed when an abuse of that discretion is shown. McElroy, Mississippi Evidence, § 183, pp. 514-515 (1955).
On cross-examination of Gowan, appellant's attorney attempted to question Gowan on convictions of misdemeanors in addition to his felony convictions. The lower court sustained the district attorney's objection to misdemeanor convictions. This was error. Mississippi Code Annotated section 13-1-11 (1972) provides as follows:
A conviction of a person for any offense, except perjury or subornation of perjury, shall not disqualify such person as a witness, but such conviction may be given in evidence to impeach his credibility. . . .
In McElroy, Mississippi Evidence, section 130, pages 404-405 (1955), we find the following:
To impeach the credibility of a witness he may be asked (1) if he has ever been convicted of a crime, and if his answer is in the affirmative, he may be further asked, (2) what was the crime or misdemeanor, but never is he permitted to be asked any other questions about (the details of) the offense, . . . .
In Baker v. State, 307 So.2d 545 (Miss.1975), this Court stated:
It has long been the law in this state that a witness may be cross-examined touching his conviction of a crime which may extend to misdemeanors as well as infamous crimes.
There is an exception to the above stated principle as set out in Mississippi Code Annotated section 63-9-15 (1972) regarding traffic violations.
On direct examination by the district attorney of witness Stanley Howell, it was brought out that he had served several terms in the Mississippi State Penitentiary and had several felony convictions. On cross-examination attorney for appellant attempted to elicit from Howell the felonies of which he had been convicted. The lower court sustai...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allen
...evidence of all or nearly all prior convictions are: Louisiana (Louisiana Stat.Ann.--Rev.Stat. 15:495); Mississippi (see Sanders v. State, 352 So.2d 822 [Miss., 1977] ); Missouri (§ 491.050, VAMS); Rhode Island (see State v. Lombardi, 113 R.I. 206, 319 A.2d 346 [1974] ) (the trial court may......
-
Caston v. State
...26, 28 (Miss.1985); Barnes v. State, 460 So.2d 126, 131 (Miss.1984); King v. State, 363 So.2d 269, 274 (Miss.1978); Sanders v. State, 352 So.2d 822, 824 (Miss.1977). This Court further held in Suan [O]ne accused of a crime has the right to broad and extensive cross-examination of the witnes......
-
Wetz v. State
...Manning v. State, 188 Miss. 393, 195 So. 319, 320 (1940); Miss.Code Ann. Secs. 13-1-11 and -13 (1972) 4; see also Sanders v. State, 352 So.2d 822 (Miss.1977) (defendant entitled to cross-examine prosecution witness on both misdemeanor and felony convictions); Hartfield v. State, 186 Miss. 7......
-
Foster v. State
...treatment. When the chosen method of impeachment is by proof of convictions, details of the crime are inadmissible. Sanders v. State, 352 So.2d 822 (Miss.1977). When, however, the chosen method of impeachment is by proof of bias, prejudice or motive, as in the case at bar, wide latitude is ......