Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 12 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 54356,54356 |
| Citation | 457 So.2d 327 |
| Parties | Leon SMITH v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Percy S. Stanfield, Jr., Merrida P. Coxwell, Jr., Stanfield, Carmody, Coxwell & Creel, Jackson, for appellant.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Charles W. Maris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ.
Leon Smith was convicted in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Harrison County, Mississippi, of carrying a concealed weapon under Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 97-37-1 (1972), and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under Sec. 99-19-83 (Supp.1983). Smith assigns as error the trial court's actions in,
(1) Failing to quash the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy;
(2) Failing to grant a mistrial upon improper and prejudicial cross-examination by the district attorney;
(3) Refusing the defendant's instructions on circumstantial evidence;
(4) Refusing to grant a peremptory instruction on the ground of insufficient evidence.
For the reasons set out below, we find no merit in Smith's claim that he was subjected to double jeopardy, but conclude that the prosecutor's misconduct in this case requires reversal of the conviction and remand for a new trial.
On August 30, 1979, the police, acting on a tip, arrested Smith at an apartment complex near Gulfport, Mississippi. Smith's car was searched, and in the trunk police found a large quantity of tools and a .38 caliber revolver. Smith was subsequently indicted separately for possession of burglary tools and carrying a concealed weapon.
At the first trial, on the burglary tools charge, the trial court ordered that no mention be made of the weapon. The state put on its proof that the automobile belonged to the defendant, and that the tools were found in the trunk of the defendant's car. The state's investigators testified that the tools were identical to those frequently used in burglaries, but admitted that the tools were also commonly used in legitimate trades. Smith's defense was based on testimony by two occupants of the apartment, Susan Haskins and Christine Spears, that the tools belonged to one Bobby Scarborough, who, according to Spears, had placed them in the trunk of Smith's car. In closing argument, Smith's attorney contended that the tools found in Smith's trunk could be used legitimately and that the state must prove that they were adapted or designed for breaking and entering. Defense counsel principally relied, however, on Spears' testimony that Bobby Scarborough owned the tools and put them in the trunk of Smith's car hours prior to his arrest. The jury found Smith not guilty of possession of burglary tools.
In the second trial on the concealed weapons charge the trial court entered an order excluding any evidence of the burglary tools. The state offered substantially the same testimony as in the first trial regarding Smith's ownership of the vehicle and the discovery of the weapon in the trunk of the car. Smith offered the same defense in the form of Haskins' and Spears' testimony that the weapon belonged to Bobby Scarborough. Spears further testified that Bobby had placed the weapon in the trunk of Smith's car in her presence.
On cross-examination, the district attorney brought out the fact that both Spears and Haskins were temporarily living rent-free in an apartment leased by one of defense counsel's clients. Haskins explained the reason for her temporary move to Jackson was her fear that the prosecutor would harass her if she returned to testify:
Q Is the free rent in Jackson contingent upon you coming down here and testifying?
A No, sir.
Q In other words, they just, you testified May the 13th and you sounded so A No, sir.
good they just wanted to give you a nice apartment in Jackson?
Q You just suddenly decided you wanted a change of scenery; you wanted to move to Jackson?
A No, sir. I went to Jackson because I figured that I would be harassed by you for testifying.
Q You figured I was going to harass you?
A Yes, sir.
Q I see.
A That's the reason I went to Jackson.
Q Well, let me ask you this, have you been selling your body up there like you did on the Coast?
A I have never sold my body up there or on the Coast.
Q Are you telling me that you have never sold your body?
A Yes, sir, I'm telling you that.
Spears also stated that she had been told the district attorney would arrest and imprison her if she returned to testify. Because of this accusation, the trial court allowed the district attorney to ask Spears if she had any knowledge of outstanding warrants against her, but twice admonished the prosecutor not to go into details of any alleged crime. The following exchange then occurred:
Q Didn't you know that there was some warrants for you, based on writing some checks?
A No, I didn't. I don't see how there could be any warrants when I ain't wrote no checks.
Q You ain't wrote no checks?
A No.
Q Well, didn't you run out of the Hancock Bank, at the Long Beach Branch, when you tried to cash a check ....
A (Interposing) No, sir, I did not.
Q May I finish?
A (Inaudible.)
The district attorney's next attempt at discrediting Ms. Spears focused on the fact that she had not mentioned the weapon in her testimony at the first trial on the burglary tools charge:
And then you went outside and you saw him taking this pistol, saw him wrapping this pistol?
A A pistol similar to that ... (inaudible).
....
Q Now, do you ever remember testifying to that before?
A No, sir.
Q What did you say last time?
(Off-the-record discussion at the Bench between Court and Counsel.)
BY THE COURT: Objection overruled.
....
Q But, you never mentioned anything about a pistol at the last trial, did you?
A Because I was told that I wasn't supposed to.
Q You was told not to mention anything .....
A (Interposing) Right.
Q ..... about, about a gun?
A That's right.
Q But, you knew all about the gun?
A Yes, sir.
The defense counsel was prevented from bringing out the fact that Spears was required by the trial court's ruling in the burglary tools trial not to mention the weapon:
Q Who told you not to mention or what to mention, when you testified last, pertaining to a gun?
BY MR. NECAISE: We're going to object to that, if the Court please.
A Nobody told me what to mention. I was just told to tell the truth, but that I shouldn't say anything about the gun.
Q Who told you that?
A You did.
Q Did you give me a statement in writing, uh, on May the 8th of 1980, in Gulfport, Mississippi?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q And in that statement did you tell me about a gun?
BY MR. NECAISE: Object to that, if the Court, Judge, he's trying to .......
A (Interposing) Yes, I did.
In the state's rebuttal case, the district attorney asked Ollie Scarborough, father of Bobby Scarborough, the following question:
Q Mr. Scarborough, I'm not paying your, your rent out there at your house, am I?
A I wish you was.
A And my utilities, too.
Also, in questioning Warren Scarborough, Bobby's brother, regarding the details of his prior conviction, an objection was made and sustained. The prosecutor then said:
BY MR. NECAISE: I'm not going to get him an apartment.
Q Now, ......
Finally, the district attorney asked Warren, who was incarcerated at the time:
Q I haven't given you an apartment, have I and found, found you a job, have I?
The jury found Smith guilty of carrying a concealed weapon and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole.
Appellant's double jeopardy claim, if valid, would void ab initio his second trial and conviction for carrying a concealed weapon. The issue is controlled by this Court's recent decision in Sanders v. State, 429 So.2d 245 (Miss.1983). In Sanders, charges of rape and burglary were brought against the defendant arising from an incident where someone broke into a residence and raped a woman....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Puckett v. State
...the court's instructions. s 70. In alleging prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to warrant a new trial, Puckett relies on Smith v. State, 457 So.2d 327 (Miss.1984) and Hughes v. State, 470 So.2d 1046 (Miss.1985). The State contends that Smith is distinguishable from the case at bar because ......
-
Livingston v. State, 57198
...(Citations omitted). 209 Miss. at 155-56, 46 So.2d at 97. See also, Gallion v. State, 469 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Miss.1985); Smith v. State, 457 So.2d 327, 333-36 (Miss.1984); Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 837-41 As we stated in West, comments on the defendant's failure to testify violate an "el......
-
Lester v. State
...merits of the alleged prejudice by the fact that objections were made and sustained, or that no objections were made" Smith v. State, 457 So.2d 327, 333-34 (Miss.1984) (citing Wood v. State, 257 So.2d 193, 200 (Miss.1972); Howell v. State, 411 So.2d 772, 776 (Miss.1982); Forrest v. State, 3......
-
McGilberry v. State, 97-DP-00213-SCT.
...by trial judge prosecutor continually attempted to impeach defendant with inadmissible prior criminal acts); Smith v. State, 457 So.2d 327, 333-36 (Miss.1984)(appellant was repeatedly subjected to irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial evidence which denied him the right to a fair and im......