Title: Johns v. State

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

255 So. 2d 322 (1971) Jerry L. JOHNS v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 46581. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 6, 1971. *323 Guy C. Faggard, Pascagoula, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gilfoy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. GILLESPIE, Chief Justice: Jerry Johns was convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County of arson and sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary. The state offered sufficient circumstantial evidence to make a jury issue as to the defendant's guilt. The defendant took the stand in his defense and gave an exculpatory version of how the fire occurred in which the front part of his parents' home was blown out and partially burned. A statement of the evidence would serve no useful purpose. When the defendant was tendered to the prosecuting attorney for cross-examination, the following took place: The court then excused the jury and the prosecuting attorney questioned defendant extensively but failed to show that the defendant had been convicted of any crime except the automobile theft in Federal court at Biloxi. The state failed to offer any evidence whatever contradicting defendant's statement (before the jury) that he had been convicted only once. The jury then returned and the court made the following ruling: It is contended that the court erred in not ordering a mistrial as requested by defendant. The statutes[1] provide that a conviction may be given in evidence to impeach the credibility of a witness. These statutes, which must be strictly construed, permit a witness to be examined as to his convictions; and if he denies he was convicted, then he may be contradicted by proving the fact of conviction. Powers v. State, 156 Miss. 316, 126 So. 12 (1930). It is error for a prosecutor to ask a defendant if he has been "charged" with a crime. Starling v. State, 89 Miss. 328, 42 So. 798 (1907). In the present case the district attorney not only asked the defendant if he had been "charged" with a crime, but also inferred that defendant had been A.W.O.L. and convicted of crimes in three different states. This was reversible error since we cannot say what effect the incompetent statements had upon the jury. Perhaps the most prejudicial error was committed by the district attorney when, in response to defense counsel's statement that "if they have any evidence to the contrary (that defendant had been convicted only once), they should produce it in the proper manner," the district attorney responded, "I will be glad to produce it." The district attorney did not thereafter reveal a scintilla of evidence of other convictions, yet he in effect told the jury he had such evidence and would produce it. For the above reasons the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. The other error assigned involved evidence given by the fire marshal that his investigation revealed defendant's parents were ten months behind on their mortgage payments. On the grounds assigned, this was not error, however, it was hearsay and probably an objection would have been sustained if proper objections had been made. There is no reason for this question to recur on a new trial. Reversed and remanded. BRADY, PATTERSON, SMITH and SUGG, JJ., concur. [1] Miss.Code 1942 Ann. §§ 1692, 1693 (1957).