Woods v. State, 36199.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Citation: 27 So.2d 895,200 Miss. 527
• Docket Number: 36199.
• Decision Date: 11 November 1946
• Parties: WOODS v. STATE.

27 So.2d 895

200 Miss. 527

WOODS
v.
STATE.

No. 36199.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 11, 1946

[27 So.2d 896]

[200 Miss. 528] T. Price Dale, of Hattiesburg, for appellant.

[200 Miss. 529] Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and Geo. H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

[200 Miss. 531] ROBERDS, Justice.

Woods, by three separate affidavits, was charged with (1) exhibiting a deadly weapon, to-wit a pistol, in a rude, angry and threatening manner in violation of Section 2086, (2) with carrying concealed a deadly weapon, to-wit a pistol, in violation of Section 2079, and (3) with assault and battery with fists in violation of Section 2562, the three cited sections being in the Mississippi Code of 1942. At the beginning of the trial in the County Court the county prosecuting attorney moved the Court to grant an order consolidating these three charges into one and for one trial of the consolidated case because, as stated by him, the three crimes 'grew out of one and the same transaction.' Woods objected to this procedure but the trial judge granted '* * * the motion of the State to consolidate the cases inasmuch as they are misdemeanors.' Woods on this appeal contends that this was error and that we should reverse and remand the case therefor.

Mississippi has no statute on the subject of consolidating distinct criminal charges against the same person into one offense and a trial thereof as one case. Section 2514, Code 1942, grants to persons jointly indicted for felony the right to be tried separately on due application for a severance, and Section 2515 provides that persons jointly indicted for misdemeanors may be tried jointly or separately in the discretion of the Court. But the question involved here is not dealt with in either statute. The question under consideration is discussed in 8 R.C.L., page 166, par. 160; Lucas v. State, 144 Ala. 63, 39 So. 821, 3 L.R.A.,N.S., 412, and note thereto; Commonwealth v. Gallo, 275 Mass. 320, 175 N.E. 718, 79 A.L.R. 1380, and in 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 931, p. 209. These authorities reveal that in some jurisdictions such consolidation and trial are permitted in the discretion of the court, but it will also be noted that many of the cases permitting consolidation [200 Miss. 532] were decided under statutes, federal and state, so permitting, or the defendants consented, or did not object, to such procedure, and that even under these conditions the action of the court is to be guided by a sound discretion, making sure that consolidation will save delay and expense and not prejudice the defendant. These precautionary requirements are stated in 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 931, p. 210, in this language: 'Under such statutes consolidation is authorized only when the offenses charged therein might have been joined in one indictment under separate counts, and should be allowed only where the court is satisfied that the ends of justice require it in...