Young v. State, No. 53586

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtBefore PATTERSON; PATTERSON
Citation420 So.2d 1055
PartiesJerry Lynn YOUNG v. STATE of Mississippi.
Decision Date29 September 1982
Docket NumberNo. 53586

Page 1055

420 So.2d 1055
Jerry Lynn YOUNG
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
No. 53586.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Sept. 29, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1982.

Gene Barton, David O. Butts, Jr., Tupelo, for appellant.

Page 1056

Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Charles W. Maris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C.J., and ROY NOBLE LEE and PRATHER, JJ.

PATTERSON, Chief Justice, for the Court:

Jerry Lynn Young was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to thirty years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections by the Circuit Court of Lee County. He appeals from this conviction and sentence.

On the afternoon of March 17, 1980, the Presley Heights Branch of the Bank of Mississippi in Tupelo was robbed by a masked man carrying a sawed-off shotgun. The robbery lasted about two minutes following which the gunman fled in a blue and white automobile just as Police Officer Williams arrived. Williams as well as two of the three bank employees present were unable to identify the robber, however, the remaining employee, Mrs. Hoard, testified the holes in the mask permitted a view of the robber's glasses, eyes, nose, mouth, the side of his face and the color of his hair, and from this she identified Young in court as the robber. On cross-examination she stated that she had first identified Young when shown several photographs by Officer Crider which included one of Young. An objection and motion for a mistrial were interposed to the identification testimony and argument made that the in-court identification was improper because it was upon a photograph shown the witness prior to the in-court identification. The court overruled the objection and motion reasoning it to be within the jury's purview to determine what weight to give the testimony.

Troy Harrison, his wife Shirley, and Jimmy Dorman, also charged as principals, testified for the state. Each expected leniency for testifying but had no promise for such.

Dorman testified that on March 14, 1980, Young discussed the robbery with him and the next day, advised that he had bought two shotguns from The Trading Post in Mooreville and was going to rob a bank. Harrison testified that he and Dorman at Young's request assisted in sawing off the barrels of the guns and identified the weapons exhibited as the ones they altered.

The Harrisons testified a few days before the robbery, at Young's suggestion, they went to Lee Motors under the pretense of purchasing a car and had an extra key made to a blue and white car while trying it out. Dorman and Harrison testified on March 16, 1980, Young stole the car and parked it in his garage.

Shirley Harrison testified that on the day of the crime she heard Young ask her husband and Dorman to help rob the bank and saw Young leave shortly before the robbery in the blue and white car, carrying a shotgun, and wearing gloves and a coat. Shirley stated she and her husband then drove to Reid's Parking Lot, where Young had directed them to park and were joined by Dorman who told them Young was about to rob the bank and departed. Thereafter, about 3:00 p.m., Young arrived in the blue and white car, hurriedly got into the Harrisons' car with a gun and a money bag, stating how easy the robbery was and to "get the hell out of there." They drove Young to his house and continued to their home followed by Young. There the money was counted and divided before Young returned home with his portion. Dorman testified that Young called him to his house and gave him $500, which he later destroyed.

Later that night Young talked with Harrison by phone and told him to get rid of the money because the police had been to his house. Harrison was later arrested and the next morning his wife directed the police to the guns and money which she and her husband had buried. These items were exhibited at trial along with a cap, windbreaker, and green laundry bag.

B.H. Cason, the owner of The Trading Post, verified the sale of the shotguns and identified Young as the purchaser. He also identified the guns exhibited to him in court as those which he sold to Young.

Young did not testify but presented three witnesses who attested his hair color was

Page 1057

presently the same as in March, 1980, although each conceded they did not see Young the day of the robbery. One of the witnesses was appellant's brother, Larry Young, who remained in the courtroom during the trial although "the rule" had been invoked. Over objection, the court permitted him to testify but instructed the jury they might consider his presence in the courtroom in determining what weight to give his testimony.

The appellant first contends the verdict was against the credible weight of the evidence. He argues the state failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony of the accomplices must be viewed with great caution and suspicion and where uncorroborated, must not be unreasonable, improbable, self-contradictory or substantially impeached, citing Jones v. State, 368 So.2d 1265 (Miss.1979).

We are of the opinion the accomplice's testimony was corroborated in that Mrs. Hoard identified Young as the man who robbed the bank, Cason identified Young as the purchaser of the shotguns found buried with the money, and the accomplice's testimony of Young's disguise as well as the automobile he fled in was corroborated by Williams and the bank employees.

In reviewing the accomplice's testimony we find minor discrepancies, not unusual for any witness, but do not think the testimony unreasonable, improbable, self-contradictory or substantially impeached as urged by appellant. We held in Maddox v. State, 230 Miss. 529, 533, 93 So.2d 649, 650 (1957), "Seldom do witnesses agree upon every detail. Indeed, their failure to do so is often strong evidence each is trying to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • De La Beckwith v. State, Nos. 94-KA-00402-SC
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 22 Diciembre 1997
    ..."directly affects the purity of the verdict," it was presumptively prejudicial. Edlin, 523 So.2d at 45. ¶161 In Young v. State, 420 So.2d 1055, 1058 (Miss.1982), we held that the trial court's ex parte instruction to the jury during deliberations did not prejudice the defendant wh......
  • Carr v. State, No. 90-DP-01106
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 2 Febrero 1995
    ...trial. This Court has previously held that it will not reverse for an error created by the defendant's own instruction. Young v. State, 420 So.2d 1055, 1057-1058 (Miss.1982) (citing Reed v. State, 237 Miss. 23, 30, 112 So.2d 533, 535 (1959)). Second, there is no flaw in the instruction give......
  • Young v. Herring, No. 89-4095
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 26 Julio 1991
    ...the trial court committed reversible error by overruling his motion to strike Hoard's testimony and for a mistrial. Young v. State, 420 So.2d 1055, 1059 (Miss.1982). 1 The Mississippi Supreme Court declined to rule on whether the pre-trial identification procedure was unduly suggestive beca......
  • Young v. Herring, No. 84-4365
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 26 Noviembre 1985
    ...the lower court did not err in ruling the credibility of Mrs. Hoard's identification was for the jury to weigh." Young v. State, 420 So.2d 1055, 1059 In granting Young's petition for habeas corpus, the district court found that the section 2254(d) presumption of correctness does not ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • De La Beckwith v. State, Nos. 94-KA-00402-SC
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 22 Diciembre 1997
    ..."directly affects the purity of the verdict," it was presumptively prejudicial. Edlin, 523 So.2d at 45. ¶161 In Young v. State, 420 So.2d 1055, 1058 (Miss.1982), we held that the trial court's ex parte instruction to the jury during deliberations did not prejudice the defendant wh......
  • Carr v. State, No. 90-DP-01106
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 2 Febrero 1995
    ...trial. This Court has previously held that it will not reverse for an error created by the defendant's own instruction. Young v. State, 420 So.2d 1055, 1057-1058 (Miss.1982) (citing Reed v. State, 237 Miss. 23, 30, 112 So.2d 533, 535 (1959)). Second, there is no flaw in the instruction give......
  • Young v. Herring, No. 89-4095
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 26 Julio 1991
    ...the trial court committed reversible error by overruling his motion to strike Hoard's testimony and for a mistrial. Young v. State, 420 So.2d 1055, 1059 (Miss.1982). 1 The Mississippi Supreme Court declined to rule on whether the pre-trial identification procedure was unduly suggestive beca......
  • Young v. Herring, No. 84-4365
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 26 Noviembre 1985
    ...the lower court did not err in ruling the credibility of Mrs. Hoard's identification was for the jury to weigh." Young v. State, 420 So.2d 1055, 1059 In granting Young's petition for habeas corpus, the district court found that the section 2254(d) presumption of correctness does not ap......
  • 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