White v. State, 48132
| Decision Date | 20 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 48132,48132 |
| Citation | 306 So.2d 299 |
| Parties | Gregory E. WHITE v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
John C. Webb, Greenville, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Pete J. Cajoleas, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Washington County, Mississippi, where appellant was indicted and tried for the murder of Russell Reynolds. The jury found appellant guilty of manslaughter, and he was sentenced to a term of eight years in the state penitentiary. From that conviction and sentence, appellant prosecutes this appeal.
The crucial question presented on this appeal is whether the state proved by competent evidence one of the essential elements of the corpus delicti, that is, the death of Russell Reynolds.
It is undisputed that on the night of January 11, or in the early morning hours of January 12, 1973, appellant and one Slayton, a co-indictee, committed an assault and battery upon one Russell Reynolds whose unconscious body was found in the streets of Leland, Mississippi; that Reynolds was carried to the Leland Hospital where he remained in a comatose condition for eleven or twelve hours; and, that the attending physician ordered him transferred to the Veterans Administration Hospital in Jackson. The direct chain of events ends at this point, there being no evidence that Reynolds was in fact carried to or admitted to the Veterans Administration Hospital in Jackson.
The next sequence in the state's evidence shows that on February 13, 1973, Dr. Gatling, a pathologist at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Jackson, was called in to complete an autopsy which had been started by a Dr. Chu who became ill. Dr. Gatling was allowed to testify over strenuous objections that the corpse was that of Russell Reynolds although he testified that he had never known Russell Reynolds personally; that he had never seen Russell Reynolds; that he completed the autopsy for Dr. Chu and that Dr. Chu would have identified the body from medical records and an arm band attached to the body. He further stated that he did not see the arm band, did not see any clinical charts identifying the corpse as that of Russell Reynolds and did not discuss with Dr. Chu who the corpse was. However, Dr. Gatling did testify at one point, over objection, that he was relying on Dr. Chu and the integrity of the hospital records for the identification of the corpse. This testimony was hearsay and the objection thereto should have been sustained since Dr. Chu did not testify nor were the hospital records offered or admitted into evidence. See Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661 (Miss.1971).
The burden is on the state to prove the essential elements of the corpus delicti in homicide cases. Those are: (1) that the alleged deceased is, in fact, dead; and (2) that the deceased died as a result of a criminal agency. Chinn v. State, 276 So.2d 456 (Miss.1973); Rhone v. State, 254 So.2d 750 (Miss.1971); Elliott v. State, 183 So.2d 805 (Miss.1966). We are not concerned with the second element, criminal agency, as the state's evidence which we do not detail, made out a jury question in that regard. However, the proof with respect to the first element, that is, the death of Russell Reynolds was based on hearsay evidence and was, therefore, inadmissible.
When a defendant is being tried for the unlawful killing of another, the death of the other person must be proved either by direct testimony or by presumptive evidence of the strongest kind. King v. State, 251 Miss. 161, 168 So.2d 637 (1964); Pitts v. State, 43 Miss. 472 (1870).
In Harris v. State, 155 Miss. 398, 124 So. 493 (1929), this Court was confronted with the question of whether the proof showed that the decedent was dead at the time of trial. In that case, one witness testified that he took the decedent to a hospital in Vicksburg, but he was not sure which one, and another witness, who was a resident of the hospital, testified that he saw the decedent's body when it was dead, although he did not know his name, did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abston v. State, 50515
...State, 355 So.2d 679 (Miss. 1978); Curry v. State, 328 So.2d 328 (Miss. 1976); Booker v. State, 326 So.2d 791 (Miss. 1976); White v. State, 306 So.2d 299 (Miss. 1975); Younger v. State, 301 So.2d 300 (Miss. 1974); Rowell v. State, 239 So.2d 917 (Miss. 1970); Stevens v. State, 228 So.2d 888 ......
-
Hicks v. State, 50286
...and its progeny, including Curry v. State, 328 So.2d 328 (Miss.1976); Booker v. State, 326 So.2d 791 (Miss.1976); White v. State, 306 So.2d 299 (Miss.1975); Younger v. State, 301 So.2d 300 (Miss.1974); Bounds v. State, 271 So.2d 435 (Miss.1973); Rowell v. State,239 So.2d 917 (Miss.1970); an......
-
Flanagin v. State, 55620
...establish the first element of corpus delicti, relied in part on hospital records which were not introduced into evidence. White v. State, 306 So.2d 299 (Miss.1975). We reversed, following a long line of cases holding that recollection testimony is not admissible regarding writings whose no......
-
Williams v. State, 53946
...maker of a report or record must be present for cross-examination if that report or record is to be introduced as evidence. White v. State, 306 So.2d 299 (Miss.1975); Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661 (Miss.1971); Flowers v. State, 243 So.2d 564 (Miss.1971). In Flowers, this Court On the se......