Shinall v. State, 44352

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Citation199 So.2d 251
Docket NumberNo. 44352,44352
PartiesCloudies SHINALL v. STATE of Mississippi.
Decision Date15 May 1967

Jack H. Young, R. Jess Brown, Jackson, Raymond A. Brown, Jersey City, N.J., Robert L. Carter, Barbara A. Morris, New York City, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

RODGERS, Justice.

This is the second time this case has been appealed to this Court. On the former appeal (Shinall v. State, Miss., 187 So.2d 840-1966), we reversed and remanded the case because of an apparent racial discrimination in the selection of the grand and petit juries. When the mandate of this Court reached the Circuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi, the appellant was reindicted by another grand jury. He was again tried and convicted of murder, and sentenced to suffer death. Appellant has again appealed to this Court and contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error and that a new trial should be granted to him.

The defendant, Cloudies Shinall, appellant here, shot and killed Fredrick L. Humphrey, a Constable of Justice of the Peace District No. 3 of Forrest County, Mississippi. The constable was not in his district at the time of the shooting. The defendant is a Negro, and the constable was Caucasian.

The record reveals that on the day of the homicide, the defendant borrowed an automobile from a friend, L. C. Leggett, for the purpose of going to get his pay check. He took two friends with him, and when they returned to the defendant's neighborhood, Palmer's Crossing, they visited several taverns where they consumed a large quantity of beer. During the afternoon, someone in the automobile with the defendant discovered a twenty-two caliber pistol, holster and belt under the front seat of the automobile. The defendant took the pistol and buckled it upon his person. He exhibited the pistol in one of the beer taverns, and when officers came by the tavern, he gave the pistol, holster and belt to the proprietress. When the officers left, she returned them to the defendant. The defendant and his companions continued to move from one beer tavern to another, until a short time after dark. They got into Leggett's automobile again in front of the 'Heat Wave', and started to drive away, but the motor ceased to function at a place where there was a ditch in the road. Thus, the defendant was in the process of navigating the rough place in the road. The constable pointed the light beam of his flashlight toward the automobile; whereupon, the defendant drove away at such a rapid rate of speed his companions became alarmed. They beseeched defendant to slow his speed or stop because they were afraid he would wreck the car and cause their deaths.

In the meantime, Constable Humphrey had gotten into an automobile belonging to another constable and had begun to follow the automobile driven by the defendant. The defendant drove at a rapid rate of speed across a blacktop road and made several turns until he came into a curve in the road in front of the Welborn home. The defendant was going at such a fast rate of speed he could not traverse the curve and the automobile went out of control into the driveway of the Welborn home, where it struck a wire fence. The constable came up behind the automobile, stopped his car, got out, left the lights burning, and approached the automobile driven by defendant. Two witnesses said the officer had a flashlight in his hand. One witness said he also had a pistol in his hand. The constable directed the passengers to get out of the automobile, and when they alighted, the officer looked into the front seat where defendant was. At this time a gun fired. One witness saw the flash of the gun, and another witness testified that the defendant shot the officer. The two passengers ran away, and when they had gone some distance, they heard two more pistol shots.

Later that night, the defendant told one of his companions that after they fled, he walked up to Humphrey and shot the 'son-of-a-bitch in the head.' He later told L. C. Leggett, owner of the automobile, that he had killed 'the son-of-a-bitch', naming Humphrey, with Leggett's pistol. The pistol was later recovered from Leggett. It was mailed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, together with a bullet found in the body of deceased by the coroner, and upon examination by them it was discovered that the bullet from the body of the deceased matched the other bullets fired from the pistol of L. C. Leggett, so that an expert witness was able to testify that the bullet found in the body of the constable was fired from the pistol belonging to L. C. Leggett.


After the second indictment was presented by the grand jury, the defendant moved to quash the indictment upon the ground that there was a systematic discriminatory selection of the members of the grand jury. The attorneys for the State and defendant entered a stipulation and offered testimony on this subject. It appears that since the former trial of this case, the Clerk of Forrest County has performed his duty as ordered by the Federal Court in that he has registered all colored persons who desired to vote. The record reveals that the Board of Supervisors has selected names for jury service without regard to race since the former trial of this case. The testimony reveals that since November 1965 nine Negroes have served on three grand juries in Forrest County; that Negroes have served upon petit juries in criminal cases; that a special venire of seventy-nine names summoned on the trial in the instant case contained fourteen Negroes. The trial judge overruled the motion to quash the indictment, and later overruled a motion to quash the petit jury. He took judicial notice that Negroes were not discriminated against in the selection of jurors.

On appeal to this Court, appellant complains that: (1) women were not required to serve on juries in Mississippi; (2) Negroes were systematically excluded from jury selection because, (a) they were being selected as they had been for many years, (b) that the Members of the Board of Supervisors did not select persons of 'good intelligence, sound judgment, and fair character' as required by Mississippi Code Annotated section 1766 (1956) since they had selected persons they did not know; and (c) the State of Mississippi peremptorily challenged qualified colored persons left on the jury after the voir dire.

We are of the opinion that these contentions are not well-taken for the following reasons: (1) Women are not required to perform jury duty in Mississippi nor does the Federal Constitution require women to serve on juries in state courts. Mississippi Code Ann. § 1762 (1956); State v. Hall, 187 So.2d 861 (Miss.1966); Pendergraft v. State, 191 So.2d 830 (Miss.1966). (2) The evidence in this case shows that the Supervisors of Forrest County are now selecting juries from the list of qualified voters of that county without regard to race or ethnic groups, and that the constitutional impediment of discriminatory jury selection for which this case was previously reversed has been removed. All qualified persons desiring to vote are now being registered by the Circuit Clerk of Forrest County, and from this list juries are now being drawn. (a) The argument that the juries are still being selected as they have been for many years is not well-taken, because the list from which the juries are now selected is a new list of qualified voters, including Negro citizens who have registered to vote. (b) We are of the opinion that Mississippi Code Annotated section 1766 (1956) in which the Board of Supervisors is directed to select 'qualified persons of good intelligence, sound judgment, and fair character' is not a jurisdictional requirement, and although it is the duty of the Members of the Boards of Supervisors to select good citizens for jury service (Black v. State, 187 So.2d 815-Miss.1966), nevertheless, the jury laws of this State are directory and the selection of the jury list in an informal or irregular manner does not render it illegal. Miss.Code Ann. § 1798 (1952). The contention of appellant that the State of Mississippi, in the instant case, discriminated against Negroes by peremptorily challenging five Negroes, is not supported by the facts or by the law. The voir dire examination shows that most of the persons challenged by the State had been associated with the defendant. Moreover, the State is not required to accept jurors simply because they belong to the same ethnic group as the defendant. Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469.


The appellant contends that the attempted arrest of the appellant by Constable Humphrey was illegal because he was not a duly elected constable in District 3 and that when he began pursuit of defendant, no crime had been committed by him for which arrest should have been made. It is argued that deceased had a bad reputation for being a turbulent and violent person who arrested persons without probable cause, and for that reason the appellant had a right to resist an unlawful arrest and defend himself to the extent of taking the life of the deceased Constable Humphrey.

There is a list of cases heretofore decided by this Court in which we have held that a person may resist an unlawful arrest by such force as may be necessary, short of taking human life. 1 We are of the opinion that this line of authority is not applicable in the instant case because, under the facts here presented, the constable was attempting to make a legal arrest. Peace Officers and citizens may at any time arrest persons who are committing crimes in their presence, or to prevent a breach of the peace. Miss.Code Ann. § 2469 (1956). Moreover, the statutory law of this State expressly enjoins all constables 'to keep and preserve the peace within his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Fisher v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 16, 1985
    ...quickly. In a homicide prosecution such as this, the character and reputation of the deceased are not issues. 22 Shinall v. State, 199 So.2d 251, 257 (Miss.1967); Spivey v. State, 58 Miss. 858, 864-66 (1881). That a person may be a drug dealer, drug user or garden variety drunk in no way op......
  • Russell v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 12, 1992
    ...evidence of Officer Cotton's character was admissible if such evidence was offered in the proper form and relevant. See Shinall v. State, 199 So.2d 251 (Miss.1967). D. Evidence of character, and specific acts of the victim towards the defendant, offered to show the defendant's state of mind......
  • Wiley v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1986
    ...person is not involved as part of the issue in a murder case, and proof relative thereto is generally inadmissible." Shinall v. State, 199 So.2d 251, 257 (Miss.1967). See also, Hubbard v. State, 288 So.2d 716 (Miss.1974). It is generally agreed that the prosecution cannot enter proof of the......
  • Hart v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1994
    ...because he is afraid of him; nor may one kill another because he is afraid that he will receive some bodily harm." Shinall v. State, 199 So.2d 251, 259 (Miss.1967). Both Hart and Dr. Stanley testified that the only reason Hart drove over to Thurman's house was to see what Thurman looked lik......
  • 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