Sumrall v. State, 46620
| Decision Date | 24 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46620,46620 |
| Citation | 257 So.2d 853 |
| Parties | Gary R. SUMRALL v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
E. R. Alley, Lampkin Butts, Laurel, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Appellant Gary Sumrall, in conjunction with two others, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Jones County for the sale and delivery of marijuana to a minor. He was granted a severance and after trial he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to serve a term of two years in the State Penitentiary. From this conviction and sentence he appeals. We reverse and remand.
Since this case must be reversed and remanded for another trial, we will only detail that part of the evidence necessary for this opinion. The evidence on behalf of the state, taken in its strongest light, together with all the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, is sufficient to show that on March 2, 1971, appellant was an accessory before the fact in that he aided, abetted, and encouraged one Jack Dozier in the sale of a quantity of marijuana to Randy Mozingo, a person under twenty-one years of age. However, the state, over the objection of the appellant, was allowed to show by the witness Mozingo that on the next day after the alleged sale appellant came to Mozingo's apartment and brought with him a quantity of marijuana. Mozingo was also allowed to testify that he rolled some cigarettes from the marijuana he had bought the night before, appellant rolled some cigarettes from the marijuana he brought with him, and that they, along with others, went into the living room and smoked the marijuana. The state also attempted to prove by this witness that he had procured marijuana from appellant on another occasion some months prior to the alleged offense charged. The court finally sustained appellant's objection to this testimony and instructed the jury to disregard it, but refused to grant a mistrial.
One of the assignments of error is that the admission of the foregoing evidence of another and separate offense for which appellant was not on trial was reversible error. We are of the opinion that it was error for the trial court to allow the state to show the appellant had marijuana in his possession the next day after the alleged slae. It is contended by the appellant that the admission of this evidence was highly prejudicial and served no other useful purpose than to prejudice the jury against the defendant. It is a well-settled general rule that the issue on a criminal trial should be single and that the testimony should be confined to that issue and on the trial for one offense the prosecution should not be allowed to aid the proof against the defendant by showing he committed other offenses, even though of a like nature. Cummings v. State, 219 So.2d 673 (Miss.1969); Ladnier v. State, 254 Miss. 469, 182 So.2d 389 (1966); Brown v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. State
...with sexual battery, the introduction of that evidence was clearly error. Massey v. State, 393 So.2d 472 (Miss.1981); Sumrall v. State, 257 So.2d 853 (Miss.1972). The majority cannot have it both ways, if the sexual battery was charged it was done in such a manner so as to deprive Lambert o......
-
Blue v. State
...that would tend to cause the jury to disfavor the defendant due to matters other than evidence relative to the crime. Sumrall v. State, 257 So.2d 853, 854 (Miss.1972). In the instant case, the prosecutor's comment clearly speaks to a non-testifying Blue's demeanor and appearance. Consequent......
-
Walker v. State
...So.2d 761 (1955); Pegram v. State, 223 Miss. 294, 78 So.2d 153 (1955); Floyd v. State, 166 Miss. 15, 148 So. 226 (1933). Sumrall v. State, 257 So.2d 853, 859 (Miss.1972). The court and the district attorneys in this case chose to ignore that "well-settled rule" and introduce irrelevant, inf......
-
McGowen v. State
...is not allowed to aid the proof against the accused by showing he committed other offenses. Id. at 1275 (quoting Sumrall v. State, 257 So.2d 853 (Miss.1972)). In Tucker, this Court remanded the defendant's narcotics possession conviction because there was testimony elicited by the prosecuti......