State v. Burrill, 48368

Decision Date14 April 1975
Docket NumberNo. 48368,48368
Citation312 So.2d 1
PartiesSTATE of Mississippi v. Edward J. BURRILL.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Albert Necaise, Dist. Atty., Gulfport, for appellant.

Alben N. Hopkins, Gulfport, for appellee.

Before GILLESPIE, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

GILLESPIE, Chief Justice.

Edward J. Burrill filed in the Circuit Court of Harrison County a motion to have a stenographic record made of the proceedings of the grand jury for inspection by Burrill's counsel. From the petition and the affidavit attached it appears that Burrill had been charged with murder and bound over to await the action of the grand jury at a preliminary hearing held by the county judge and that a transcript of the preliminary hearing was available to Burrill's counsel. The grounds alleged as justifying the motion are (1) matters (not specified) will occur before the grand jury which may constitute grounds for a motion to dismiss the indictment; (2) the evidence previously presented at the preliminary hearing was inadmissible because based on an illegal search; and (3) incompetent testimony will be produced before the grand jury in violation of Burrill's constitutitional rights. No specific facts are stated.

The court entered an order, without proof other than the affidavit mentioned above, that the court reporter be sworn to secrecy and then make a full transcript 'of all testimony and proceedings before the grand jury with respect to the charges against the defendant, Edward J. Burrill,' and to transcribe an original and two copies to be delivered to the circuit clerk to be kept by him in a sealed envelope to be opened only upon further order of the court.

Thereafter, on the petition of the district attorney, the order was stayed by a Judge of this Court and an appeal was granted the state.

I.

The threshold question is whether the order of the circuit court requiring the presence of the court reporter to transcribe the proceedings of the grand jury is appealable by the state. This question has two points of inquiry.

(a) Is the order a final one:

Only final orders of the circuit court may be appealed, except certain questions involving damages, as provided by Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated section 11-51-3. What constitutes a final order is the crucial aspect of this question.

The Judges of the Supreme Court may allow appeals and grant supersedeas from a final judgment of the circuit court. Miss.Code 1972 Ann. § 9-3-33.

Determination of the question of finality requires an examination of the proceedings that resulted in the judgment or order involved. Burrill incorrectly assumes it is merely a preliminary procedural order in a murder prosecution. No murder indictment or other criminal charge appears in the record and it is clear that Burrill had not been indicted. The proceeding does not carry a circuit court number, but was designated 'Grand Jury Docket No. 1.' In sum, the motion is the whole suit and all the action contemplated by this pleading has been taken and nothing remained for the court to do except execute the order. This necessarily is a final order. The judicial labor in this case or proceeding ended with the order and the rights of the parties were finally determined. The state, which had an interest in the matter, desired to appeal and determine if the order was lawful. To do so it had no alternative to proceeding to appeal as it did. Otherwise it would be required to submit to the order whether or not Burrill was indicted. '(T)he test of a final judgment is whether the judicial labor is at an end.' Slatcoff v. Dezen, 72 So.2d 800, 801 (Fla.1954). All issues raised by the motion were concluded and no further proceedings were to be had that could affect them. Thus the order was final. 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments § 1054 (1969); 4 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error § 56 (1962).

(b) Is there statutory authority for the state to appeal?

Burrill questions the right of the state to appeal, citing Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated section 99-35-103, which provides when the state or a municipality may appeal in a criminal cause. That statute does not control the appeal prosecuted by the state in the present case. The limitation placed on the state by the foregoing statute contemplates causes where there is an actual prosecution of a criminal cause to final judgment. Other than in criminal causes, the state has the same right as any other litigant to prosecute an appeal under the general appeals statute.

II.

The final question is whether the order was lawfully issued. This question also has two points of inquiry.

(a) Does the law of this state authorize the presence of a stenographer at grand jury sessions?

Code section 13-5-61 is as follows:

A grand juror, except when called as a witness, in court, shall not disclose any proceeding or action had by the grand jury in relation to offenses brought before it, within six months after the adjournment of the court at which he was a grand juror, nor shall any grand juror disclose the name or testimony of any witness who has been before the grand jury on pain of fine or imprisonment for contempt of court.

Burrill relies upon cases from other jurisdictions. However, in each jurisdiction cited the court reporter is authorized either by statute or court rule to attend the sessions of the grand jury. There is no statute in this state...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • City of Mound Bayou v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 18 Abril 1990
    ... ... Court dismisses Count III (Section 1983 claim) with prejudice, remands Counts I and II (state law claims) to Circuit Court of Bolivar County ... July 7, 1988 Circuit Court Order Overruling ... v. Dolmar North American Corp., 317 So.2d 400 (Miss.1975); State v. Burrill, 312 So.2d 1 (Miss.1975); State Tax Commission v. Clinton, 267 So.2d 312 (Miss.1972); Coats v ... ...
  • De La Beckwith v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 22 Diciembre 1997
    ...to the defense. Beckwith argues that Mr. Holley's grand jury testimony was improper impeachment evidence since, under State v. Burrill, 312 So.2d 1, 3 (Miss.1975), a ¶166 We squarely addressed this issue in Scott v. State, 446 So.2d 580 (Miss.1984). In that case, the prosecutor attempted to......
  • State v. Berryhill
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 23 Octubre 1997
    ...the final judgment on the capital murder charge, in that the "judicial labor [wa]s at an end" with regard to that charge. State v. Burrill, 312 So.2d 1, 3 (Miss.1975) (quoting Slatcoff v. Dezen, 72 So.2d 800, 801 ¶11 That said, we proceed to the merits of the State's appeal. B. 1. Timelines......
  • Lockett v. Puckett
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • 16 Diciembre 1997
    ...on the capital murder charge, in that the `judicial labor [wa]s at an end' with regard to that charge." Id. ¶ 10 (quoting State v. Burrill, 312 So.2d 1, 3 (Miss.1975) (citation The court then addressed the timeliness of Berryhill's Motion to Quash. The State relied upon Miss.Code Ann. § 99-......
  • 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