Case Title: Hall v. State

Citation: 279 So. 2d 915

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1973-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
279 So. 2d 915 (1973) John E. HALL v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 47385. Supreme Court of Mississippi. June 29, 1973. Ralph E. Pogue, Aberdeen, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by T.E. Childs, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. SUGG, Justice: Appellant was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Mississippi for grand larceny and sentenced to serve 3 years in the state penitentiary less credit for time served in the county jail awaiting trial. *916 Appellant was apprehended in West Point, Mississippi about 11:30 p.m. in possession of an automobile that had been stolen the previous day from a dealer in Monroe County, Mississippi. Appellant attempted to flee when he was arrested and made no explanation for his possession of the automobile until he testified at his trial. The only error assigned on appeal is the granting of the following instruction for the State: The instruction is subject to more than one objection, but we will consider only that portion thereof which required defendant to give a "satisfactory" explanation of his possession of the automobile in order to be relieved of any inference of guilt that may be drawn against him. In Crowell v. State, 195 Miss. 427, 15 So. 2d 508 (1943), this Court considered an instruction requiring the accused to give a satisfactory explanation and stated: An instruction which correctly states the principles of law applicable to cases involving possession of recently stolen property is set forth in Fletcher v. State, 168 Miss. 361, 151 So. 477 (1933), the instruction being as follows: In proper cases the instruction may be given as approved in Fletcher, but no attempt should be made to enlarge the scope of the instruction or to experiment with a change in language. We hold that the instruction as given does not accurately state the law applicable to cases involving possession of recently stolen property and, under Crowell, supra, giving the instruction was reversible error. Reversed and remanded. All Justices concur.