Sisk v. State, 47912
| Decision Date | 13 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47912,47912 |
| Citation | 294 So.2d 472 |
| Parties | Paul SISK v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Mitchell, Rogers & Eskridge, Tupelo, Ralph E. Pogue, Aberdeen, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Billy L. Gore, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Paul Sisk appeals from an embezzlement conviction for which he was sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary by the Circuit Court of Monroe County. The indictment charged that by virtue of his office as a member of the board of supervisors the appellant had in his care and possession certain motor grader and bulldozer parts, the property of Monroe County, valued at $1562.60 which he embezzled by converting to his own use.
The appellant had served as supervisor for District No. 5 of Monroe County for more than thirty years prior to 1970. The indictment covered purchases of motor grader and bulldozer parts for the years 1965 to 1968. During this interval Supervisor's District No. 5 owned four caterpillar motor graders. These were a 112 motor grader, serial No. 81C33, referred to as the 'C' machine; a 212 motor grader referred to as the 'U' machine; a 12 motor grader referred to as the 'T' machine; and a 212 motor grader referred to as the 'R' machine. The district did not own either a 112 caterpillar motor grader, serial No. 2M-148, referred to as the 'M' machine, or a D7-3T bulldozer. The latter two machines, for which the parts charged to have been embezzled were suitable as replacements, had at one time belonged to the appellant. However, on August 15, 1964, they had been conveyed to one R. G. Check although remaining on the premises of the appellant and subject to his control.
The possession of the motor grader and bulldozer parts mentioned in the indictment involved six invoices of Taylor Machinery Company from its places of business in Memphis, Tennessee, or Tupelo, Mississippi. Exhibits 1 through 5 of the state comprise claims filed for payment to the Taylor company as a debt of District No. 5. Each contains a statement of account with the invoices attached. They list the machinery parts alleged to have been embezzled by descriptive names and specific numbers, for example, Exhibit No. 1 relating to machine No. 112-2M-148, 'Part No. 6B-48-Bolt,' and 'Part No. 1B-4101-Bearing.' A copy of a county warrant is attached to each exhibit indicating payment of the purchase price from the road funds of Supervisor's District No. 5. It appears that payment was approved by the appellant and the claims were allowed and satisfied by county warrants.
The invoices each had a blank in the upper right-hand corner reading 'Machine No. _ _.' In this space on three of the invoices there was inserted the number 112-2M-148 (the motor grader previously owned by Sisk). Another invoice bore the notation 2M-148 (again the motor grader of Sisk), another, D7-8T (the bulldozer previously owned by Sisk), and in another the space was left blank.
The state offered no evidence that all of the machinery parts listed on the six invoices were embezzled. Its testimony was limited to an attempt to prove the conversion to the appellant's own use of certain parts listed on the invoices which were suitable for the machines previously owned by him. In State's Exhibit No. 1 only one part from an invoice listing twenty-six parts was charged to have been embezzled. In Exhibit No. 2 four parts from a total of eighteen were alleged to have been embezzled. In Exhibit No. 3 there were two invoices listing a total of twenty-two parts of which three parts were alleged to have been embezzled. In Exhibit No. 4 nine parts were listed on the invoice of which three were alleged to have been embezzled. Exhibit No. 5 listed one part of a value of $38.70 and this part was alleged to have been embezzled.
Leith Roye, parts manager for the Tupelo branch of Taylor Machinery Company, was called as a witness for the state. He testified that of the twelve parts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buchanan v. State
...must be satisfied with evidence, not speculation or conjecture. Edwards v. State , 469 So. 2d 68, 69-70 (Miss. 1985) ; Sisk v. State , 294 So. 2d 472, 475 (Miss. 1974). "Should the facts and inferences ... ‘point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense with sufficient force ......
-
McClung v. State
...must be satisfied with evidence, not speculation or conjecture. Edwards v. State , 469 So. 2d 68, 69-70 (Miss. 1985) ; Sisk v. State , 294 So. 2d 472, 475 (Miss. 1974). We will reverse and render if the facts and inferences point in favor of the defendant with such force that reasonable jur......
-
Pennock v. State, 07-58644
...conversion of property lawfully possessed by the person charged. Lambert v. State, 518 So.2d 621, 623-24 (Miss.1987); Sisk v. State, 294 So.2d 472, 474 (Miss.1974); Jackson v. State, 211 Miss. 828, 831-32, 52 So.2d 914, 915 When a person--even an agent of the owner--takes possession of prop......
-
Montgomery v. State
...conversion of property lawfully possessed by the person charged. Medley v. State, 600 So.2d 957, 960 (Miss.1992) (citing Sisk v. State, 294 So.2d 472, 474 (Miss.1974)). ¶ 31. As previously mentioned, Montgomery was in charge of running the day-to-day operations at PE. Not only was she the o......