Shannon v. State, No. 48725

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtPATTERSON; GILLESPIE
Citation321 So.2d 1
PartiesJoe H. SHANNON v. STATE of Mississippi.
Docket NumberNo. 48725
Decision Date27 October 1975

Page 1

321 So.2d 1
Joe H. SHANNON
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
No. 48725.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Oct. 27, 1975.

Page 2

Hathorn & Hathorn, Louisville, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Catherine Walker, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, INZER and WALKER, JJ.

PATTERSON, Justice.

Joe Shannon was convicted of murder by the Circuit Court of Winston County. He was sentenced to life in the state penitentiary and now appeals. We affirm.

The first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict for the defendant at the conclusion of the state's evidence, in not granting a peremptory instruction at the conclusion of all the evidence, and in holding that the verdict of the jury was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Five witnesses for the state, including the sheriff of the county, were present when the appellant shot and killed Bill Coward. They testified there was no struggle between the two preceding the shot fired by the appellant. It is true that four witnesses for the defense, including the appellant, testified there was a struggle between the two prior to the homicide. There was, therefore, a classic case of conflicting evidence to be resolved by a jury. The resolution of the conflict was unfavorable to the appellant, but there is no way we can state there was not sufficient evidence to withstand the motions for a directed verdict, peremptory instruction, or that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We opine, as we have many times before, that conflicts of evidence are properly left for the jury's resolution. King v. State, 315 So.2d 925 (Miss.1975), and Murphree v. State, 228 So.2d 599 (Miss.1969).

The appellant next contends the trial court erred when it did not permit some locks of the appellant's hair to be introduced into evidence. There was testimony by the defendant and some of his witnesses, but not his wife, that Coward approached the defendant as he was seated in an automobile and, as the aggressor, grasped the appellant's hair, thereby pulling and beating his head against the automobile door, during the course of which some hair was pulled from the defendant's head. This hair, according to the record, was later found in the appellant's automobile by his sons.

The hair was sought to be admitted into evidence by the appellant's wife to whom it had been given for safekeeping. If permitted in evidence, it would have been an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Franklin v. State, No. 2012–KA–01496–SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 8, 2014
    ...Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297, 300 (Miss.1983) (quoting Gandy v. State, 373 So.2d 1042, 1045 (Miss.1979) (citing Shannon v. State, 321 So.2d 1 (Miss.1975))). We agree. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's admission of the testimony.III. Whether Franklin's right to a fair tr......
  • Nicholson v. State, No. 57471
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 16, 1988
    ...of the witnesses, it is the jury's duty to resolve the conflict. Gandy v. State, 373 So.2d 1042, 1045 (Miss.1979); Shannon v. State, 321 So.2d 1, 2 (Miss.1975); Bond v. State, 249 Miss. 352, 356-57, 162 So.2d 510, 512 (1964). The jury's findings will not be disturbed by this Court unless th......
  • Fleming v. State, No. 89-KA-276
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 17, 1992
    ...Sanders v. State, 219 So.2d 913 (Miss.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 913, 90 S.Ct. 228, 24 L.Ed.2d 188 (1969); see also Shannon v. State, 321 So.2d 1, 2 (Miss.1975) (no error where objectionable statements "were to a great extent the product of the cross and direct examinations by the defense at......
  • Franklin v. State, NO. 2012-KA-01496-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 20, 2014
    ...v. State, 440 So. 2d 297, 300 (Miss. 1983) (quoting Gandy v. State, 373 So. 2d 1042, 1045 (Miss. 1979) (citing Shannon v. State, 321 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 1975))). We agree. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's admission of the testimony. III. Whether Franklin's right to a fair trial ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Franklin v. State, No. 2012–KA–01496–SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 8, 2014
    ...Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297, 300 (Miss.1983) (quoting Gandy v. State, 373 So.2d 1042, 1045 (Miss.1979) (citing Shannon v. State, 321 So.2d 1 (Miss.1975))). We agree. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's admission of the testimony.III. Whether Franklin's right to a fair tr......
  • Nicholson v. State, No. 57471
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 16, 1988
    ...of the witnesses, it is the jury's duty to resolve the conflict. Gandy v. State, 373 So.2d 1042, 1045 (Miss.1979); Shannon v. State, 321 So.2d 1, 2 (Miss.1975); Bond v. State, 249 Miss. 352, 356-57, 162 So.2d 510, 512 (1964). The jury's findings will not be disturbed by this Court unless th......
  • Fleming v. State, No. 89-KA-276
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 17, 1992
    ...Sanders v. State, 219 So.2d 913 (Miss.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 913, 90 S.Ct. 228, 24 L.Ed.2d 188 (1969); see also Shannon v. State, 321 So.2d 1, 2 (Miss.1975) (no error where objectionable statements "were to a great extent the product of the cross and direct examinations by the defense at......
  • Franklin v. State, NO. 2012-KA-01496-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 20, 2014
    ...v. State, 440 So. 2d 297, 300 (Miss. 1983) (quoting Gandy v. State, 373 So. 2d 1042, 1045 (Miss. 1979) (citing Shannon v. State, 321 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 1975))). We agree. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's admission of the testimony. III. Whether Franklin's right to a fair trial ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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