Sanders v. State
| Citation | 242 So.2d 412 |
| Decision Date | 21 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 46137,46137 |
| Parties | Wallace V. SANDERS v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Jack H. Young, Jr., Eddie H. Tucker, Jackson, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Timmie Hancock, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
The defendant-appellant was indicted for the armed robbery of H. L. Markham. A jury of the Circuit Court of Leflore County returned a verdict of guilty, and defendant was sentenced to serve twenty-five years in the State Penitentiary.
The evidence for the state was sufficient to justify the jury in finding the following facts. On February 12, 1969, at about 8:00 P.M., Alphonso Pankey, an employee of Malouf Music Company, was on the job in a rear room of the music company in Greenwood when the defendant entered with a shotgun which he pointed at Pankey's face. Pankey followed defendant's order to go to the front where three other employees of Malouf, one of whom was Markham, were lying on the floor. Three other armed people were in the store. About eight or nine thousand dollars of the music company's money (in wrappers or bags with Malouf Music Company's name and address thereon) were on the counter when the robbers came in. At the command of one of the robbers, one of Malouf's employees got up off the floor and sacked up the music company's money. He was then ordered back on the floor and tied up by one of the robbers. One of the robbers then took $2,230 from Markham's pocket. The robbers then fled with the money. Pankey saw defendant, who was not wearing a mask, and identified him as the man who accosted him with the shotgun.
On February 3, 1969, someone called Markham's attention to a dark blue 1968 Buick Skylark parked in the rear of the Malouf Music Company. Markham took the tag number and noted that the car had 'GS California' on the left rear fender. This information was reported to the police, and it was determined that the tag on the 1968 Buick Skylark had been issued for a Chevrolet. Shortly after the robbery, Markham talked to a highway patrolman and told him to be on the lookout for the particular 1968 Buick Skylark he had previously seen at the Malouf Music Company. The highway patrol officers soon thereafter saw the 1968 Buick Skylark, apparently heavily loaded (the bulk of the money was in coins) and stopped it, arresting the four occupants, one of whom was the defendant. Several large rolls of money were taken from those arrested. Two large rolls of money were taken from defendant's pockets. In the car the officers found a .32 caliber pistol, a .30 caliber carbine, and a sawed off shotgun, all loaded. They also found suitcases, ski masks (some of the robbers were wearing ski masks), and money wrappers with 'Malouf Music Company' thereon.
Prior to trial defendant's counsel filed a plea of former jeopardy in which he stated that defendant had been acquired of the same offense and under the same facts and circumstances under which he was then charged and that the record of the trial resulting in the former acquittal was in the same court. He averred that if defendant was tried under the indictment in the present case it would twice place him in jeopardy for the same offense in violation of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In his brief defendant states that he was indicted on March 5, 1969, for the armed robbery of the Malouf Music Company and that he was tried and acquitted. It is argued that in the first trial the single issue was whether defendant was one of the robbers, and the jury in that trial found him not guilty, thereby finding that defendant was not one of the robbers. He further states that since Markham was robbed during the robbery of Malouf Music Company, the second prosecution is impermissible under Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). Prior to Ashe the Supreme Court of the United States had viewed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carr v. Mid-South Oxygen, Inc., DC 82-70-WK-O.
...Cir. 1981); Ditta v. City of Clinton, 391 So.2d 627 (Miss.1980), as modified on denial of rehearing, id. (Miss.1981); Sanders v. Mississippi, 242 So.2d 412 (Miss. 1970). Therefore, plaintiff's action in state court, whatever the outcome, can have no collateral effect on her husband's suit a......
-
Stovall v. Price Waterhouse Co.
...litigation. Ditta v. City of Clinton, 391 So.2d 627 (Miss. 1980), as modified on denial of rehearing, id. (Miss. 1981); Sanders v. Mississippi, 242 So.2d 412 (Miss. 1970). Mississippi law in this area has been characterized as being rigid as any now extant. Note, Collateral Estoppel the Mul......
-
State v. Cox
...by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit. See Sanders v. State, 242 So.2d 412 (Miss.1970), wherein we adopted the definition though estoppel was not applied because of the circumstances of that case. However, in State......
-
Ditta v. City of Clinton, 52173
...Louisiana lawsuit involved different party litigants and different issues. Magee v. Griffin, 345 So.2d 1027 (Miss.1977); Sanders v. State, 242 So.2d 412 (Miss.1970). Ditta's suit against Hammerhead in Louisiana was based upon the failure (defective qualities) of the timber retaining wall co......