Stever v. State, 56305

Decision Date18 February 1987
Docket NumberNo. 56305,56305
Citation503 So.2d 227
PartiesAlbert B. STEVER v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Jerry O. Terry, Greaves, Terry & Sheely, Gulfport, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Henry C. Clay, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ.

SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court:

Albert B. Stever was convicted of manslaughter by the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Harrison County, Mississippi. The conviction was the result of an automobile accident. Judge Leslie B. Grant sentenced Stever to a term of two (2) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.

Stever assigns three errors on this appeal:

I. The lower court erred in refusing to grant judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case, at the close of the appellant's case, and after verdict of the jury;

II. The lower court erred in admitting into evidence the BAC test performed upon appellant, who was not under arrest; and

III. The lower court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when it was discovered that nine (9) jurors were guilty of misconduct.

The collision occurred on December 4, 1981, between the hours of 8:30 and 9:00 o'clock p.m., between a pickup truck driven by Stever and a Volkswagen driven by Teresa Marie Zitano. Ms. Zitano was killed. The accident occurred just north of the Kremer Bridge on Lorraine Road.

Lorraine Road is a heavily traveled two-lane asphalt roadway, which accesses Interstate 10 and U.S. Highway 49. On the night of the collision the centerline was difficult to see because it was badly faded and the lighting in the area was poor.

Stever admitted to drinking two "ponies" of beer and later in the day a beer and a half. Four empty beer cans were found in his truck. The prosecution evidence was that Stever's breath smelled of beer, that he was belligerent and that his blood alcohol content was .217.

Stever testified that he was not drunk but fully alert at the time of the accident. He was driving north on Lorraine Road when the Volkswagen suddenly crossed into his lane of traffic according to his testimony. Mrs. Jarrell, a passenger in the vehicle behind the Zitano Volkswagen, testified that she saw the headlights of the truck suddenly go into the south lane in which the Volkswagen was traveling. Mrs. Jarrell however later testified that she only heard the accident and did not see it.

The left front of the Stever truck hit the left front of the Volkswagen. The impact folded the left front wheel of the truck locking it in position. The truck came to rest on the west shoulder of the road pointed back in a southerly direction. The Volkswagen also came to rest partially on the west shoulder and headed in a general southerly direction. Skid marks were found which began approximately two feet inside the south bound lane and stopped at the left front wheel of the truck.

Douglas Jarrell testified that the Volkswagen was in front of the car in which Mrs. Jarrell was riding, and was also traveling south on Lorraine Road. The Volkswagen was about three car lengths in front of the Jarrell vehicle and moving at about 35 miles per hour. Mr. Jarrell did not recall seeing the Volkswagen travel into the north bound lane and he did not notice Stever's truck until after the impact.

DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO GRANT A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE STATE'S CASE, AT THE CLOSE OF STEVER'S CASE, AND AFTER THE VERDICT OF THE JURY?

We have long recognized that in considering vehicular manslaughter cases the issue is not whether the defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquors, but whether the defendant was guilty of culpable negligence. Dickerson v. State, 441 So.2d 536 (Miss.1983); Gandy v. State, 373 So.2d 1042 (Miss.1979); Cutshall v. State, 191 Miss. 764, 4 So.2d 289 (1941).

To obtain a conviction for vehicular manslaughter it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of culpable negligence. In Dickerson v. State, 441 So.2d 536 (Miss.1983), we cited Smith v. State, 197 Miss. 802, 20 So.2d 701 (1945), and set forth the requirements necessary to prove culpable negligence. Dickerson held that Smith requires that the state must prove that the defendant

... was guilty of such gross negligence on the occasion complained of as to evince on his part a wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of human life, or such an indifference to the consequences of his act under the surrounding circumstances as to render his conduct tantamount to wilfulness. 197 Miss. at 812, 20 So.2d at 703.

The Smith opinion goes on to make clear that:

The phrase "indifference to consequences" when used in an instruction defining culpable negligence should clearly inform the jury that what is meant is an indifference under the circumstances involving danger to human life--the equivalent to criminal intent. 197 Miss. at 814, 20 So.2d at 704. (Emphasis added).

Dickerson at 538.

Culpable negligence was defined as follows:

In order then to give the term culpable negligence in the statute its proper setting instead of harking back to gross negligence, the term culpable negligence should be construed to mean a negligence of a higher degree than that which in civil cases is held to be gross negligence, and must be a negligence of a degree so gross as to be tantamount to a wanton disregard of, or utter indifference to, the safety of human life, and that this shall be so clearly evidenced as to place it beyond every reasonable doubt. 197 Miss. at 818-819, 20 So.2d at 706. (Emphasis added).

Dickerson at 538.

The question is did the prosecution present evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stever was negligent to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Heidel v. State, 07-KA-59495
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1991
    ...There is loose language in our cases that we ignore it. See, e.g., Montgomery v. State, 515 So.2d 845, 848 (Miss.1987); Stever v. State, 503 So.2d 227, 230 (Miss.1987); Belino v. State, 465 So.2d 1043, 1044 (Miss.1985). Still, we have long held that "the jury has no right to disregard arbit......
  • Esparaza v. State, 89-KA-0075
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1992
    ...a reasonable doubt standard to the verdict, while viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict. Stever v. State, 503 So.2d 227, 230 (Miss.1987). 3 The appeal of an overruled peremptory instruction or motion for j.n.o.v. also tests the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter......
  • Turner v. State, 97-KA-00605-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 27, 1998
    ...of the motion must be affirmed. White, 566 So.2d at 1259 (quoting Boyd v. State, 523 So.2d 1037, 1040 (Miss.1988); Stever v. State, 503 So.2d 227, 230 (Miss.1987); Haymond v. State, 478 So.2d 297, 299 (Miss. 1985)). In the case sub judice, the State presented the testimony of John Williamso......
  • Gibson v. State, 56915
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1987
    ...HAWKINS, P.JJ., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. 1 This case is distinguished from Stever v. State, 503 So.2d 227 (Miss.1987), decided this day in an opinion by Justice Sullivan, in that in Stever there were no eyewitnesses, and the case was based tota......
  • 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