Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 03 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 52081,52081 |
| Citation | 387 So.2d 735 |
| Parties | Earl WRIGHT v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
James H. Arnold, Jr., Durant, for appellant.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and WALKER and BOWLING, JJ.
WALKER, Justice, for the Court:
Earl Wright appeals from his conviction in the Circuit Court of Holmes County of the charge of burglary under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-17-21 (1972). He received the maximum sentence for that crime, ten years in the penitentiary. He assigns as error the following:
(1) The court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.
(2) The court erred in refusing to grant his requested peremptory instruction.
The State put on a convincing case against the appellant. Robert Hugh Spivey testified that he and his mother live in a house located one mile south of Cruger, Mississippi, in Holmes County. On Friday, July 13, 1979, he returned home from work at about six o'clock p. m. He discovered his home had been burglarized. Specifically, he stated, "I found a bathroom window broken the glass knocked out and some mud and tracks around the tub, that somebody had entered broke the window and entered and had walked around in the house, opened some drawers, and opened some closet doors, and more or less ransacked through the house." He stated that various items of jewelry were missing, including a silver bracelet, a ring, a necklace, and a gold cross.
Deputy Josh Leonard investigated the incident. He testified that he was able to obtain five identifiable fingerprints from the broken bathroom window. He compared these fingerprints to those he had on file and discovered they matched those of Earl Wright. He labeled the prints and sent them to the Crime Lab in Jackson.
The unimpeached testimony of Edgar Ronald Smith, a fingerprint examiner at the Mississippi Crime Laboratory, was that the prints from the window matched those of Earl Wright.
The defendant asserted an alibi in defense of the charge. He testified that on Friday the thirteenth he was with his brother, Lawyer Wright, from eight o'clock a. m. until about ten-thirty a. m. He watched television until about noon, then went to Cruger with his brother and a friend, Larry Smith. They returned to his home about two o'clock p. m., he helped his brother work on his car for an hour, then he went to sleep until after dark. He stated his mother and brother were with him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaco v. State
...68, 70 (Miss.1988); Gillum v. State, 468 So.2d 856, 859-61 (Miss.1985); Lee v. State, 403 So.2d 132, 135 (Miss.1981); Wright v. State, 387 So.2d 735, 736 (Miss.1980). IV. The Jaco brothers strenuously argue that each was denied his right to a speedy trial. Every person accused of a crime, o......
-
Callahan v. State, 53361
...verdict or peremptory instruction is requested, in this case the state. Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601 (Miss. 1980); Wright v. State, 387 So.2d 735 (Miss. 1980); and Saik v. State, 387 So.2d 751 (Miss. 1980). See also Jackson v. Virginia 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 Regardle......
-
Belino v. State, 54615
...guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the peremptory instruction should be refused. Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601 (Miss.1980); Wright v. State, 387 So.2d 735 (Miss.1980); Saik v. State, 387 So.2d 751 We are of the opinion that the facts here presented a guilt issue for the jury to decide, and w......
-
Carroll v. State, 52480
...guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the peremptory instruction should be refused. Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601 (Miss.1980); Wright v. State, 387 So.2d 735 (Miss.1980); Saik v. State, 387 So.2d 751 The evidence here is circumstantial and Carroll's connection with the sale may be proved by his......