Title: Griffin v. State

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

292 So. 2d 159 (1974) James G. GRIFFIN, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 47721. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 25, 1974. *160 Michael D. Jonas, Aberdeen, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by John C. Underwood, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. INZER, Justice: Appellant James G. Griffin, Jr. and his brothers, Johnny Frank Griffin and David Griffin, were jointly indicted in the Circuit Court of Monroe County for the crime of murder in the killing of Sallie Loreen Barker. Appellant was granted a severance and on trial was convicted. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. From this conviction and sentence he appeals. We affirm. The proof on behalf of the state established that at about 10 p.m. on July 14, 1972, appellant and his brothers forcibly seized Sallie Loreen Barker and forced her into the 1971 black and white Buick automobile. While she was screaming and hollering, they drove away from the scene. On the following morning, the body of Sallie Loreen Barker was discovered in a ditch alongside a county road in the Darracott Community of Monroe County. She was nude, and her clothes were not found at the scene. An autopsy was performed, and the pathologist testified that Sallie Loreen Barker died as a result of a hemorrhage over the brain caused by multiple injuries to the head, scalp, face and the base of the skull and neck. It was his opinion that the injuries were inflicted by a long, wide or round object. The pathologist also testified that he found numerous sperm cells in the victim's vagina indicating sexual intercourse had occurred within 48 hours of her death. The sheriff's office put out an item on the Griffin brothers, and appellant and his brother Johnny Frank Griffin were arrested in Utah in July 21, 1972. They were subsequently returned to Monroe County to face a charge of murder. Both appellant and Johnny Frank Griffin testified at the trial. Johnny Frank testified that he and his two brothers had been drinking and riding around Aberdeen all day. At the time they saw Sallie Loreen Barker, he was driving. James remarked that he knew her and directed him to slow down so he could talk with her. James then asked her to come and go with them. She agreed and willingly got into the car. He testified that they then drove to a point near Daniel Baptist Church where his brother David got out of the car. Johnny Frank said that he had been drinking and driving all day and was tired. He told his brother, the appellant, to drive the car. He then got in the back seat, and James and Sallie Loreen got in the front seat. They drove away, and in a short time, he went to sleep. He said that he did not wake up until about sunup the next day, and at that time, he and his brother were in Memphis, Tennessee. They left Memphis and drove to San Francisco, California, and then back to Utah where they were arrested. He said the first time he knew that Sallie Loreen Barker was dead was when he was arrested in Utah, and his brother never told him what had happened. Appellant testified on his own behalf. He stated that he knew Sallie Loreen Barker and when he saw her, he had Johnny slow down so he could talk with her as she was walking down the street. His version as to what happened is as follows: James admitted striking Sallie Loreen several times with the jack handle, but he denied having sexual intercourse with her, or that he left her nude. He did not know exactly where he left Sallie Loreen, but he stated that it was somewhere down that "Darracott road." He testified that he took the knife with which she had attacked him away from the scene and threw it away in Memphis. He further testified that his brother Johnny Frank was asleep on the back seat of the car when the fight occurred, he remained asleep until they reached Memphis, and he (appellant) never told his brother what happened. Appellant assigns as error several grounds for reversal of this case. We will only discuss those that, in our opinion, merit discussion. Appellant first urges that the trial court was in error in overruling his motion for a change of venue. The basis of his motion for a change of venue was that local prejudice was such that he could not get an impartial jury in Monroe County. In support of his motion, appellant introduced two newspaper articles published in local newspapers and two witnesses who testified that the general concensus among the members of the black community in Aberdeen was that the appellant was guilty. The state introduced four witnesses who testified that in their opinion, appellant could get a fair and impartial trial in Monroe County. These witnesses were regularly in contact with the broad spectrum of the populace of the county, and they were not aware of any prejudice against the appellant. Appellant argues that because of the prejudice and feeling in the black community, he was forced to exclude all blacks from the jury and this amounted to a forced systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury. The record does not reflect the racial composition of the jury that tried the case, neither does it reflect whether appellant was forced to exhaust his peremptory challenges. In any event the trial court in overruling the motion stated: It is well settled that the decision to grant a change of venue lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Reversal lies only on the abuse of that discretion and there is nothing in this record to indicate that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion. Parks v. State, 267 So. 2d 302 (Miss. 1972); Slyter v. State, 246 Miss. 402, 149 So. 2d 489 (1963). Appellant assigns as error the admission in evidence of a photograph of the nude body of the deceased. After the body of the deceased was found, the investigating officer took a picture of the body at the place where it was found. It reflected that the deceased had been beaten and that there was what appeared to be dried blood on her body. Appellant testified that when he beat the deceased, she was fully clothed. The trial judge in overruling the objection out of the presence of the jury stated: It is apparent from the foregoing statement that the trial judge gave careful consideration to this question in the light of the decisions of this Court and after an examination of the photograph and the testimony *163 elicited, we cannot say he was in error in admitting the photograph in evidence. May v. State, 199 So. 2d 635 (Miss. 1967). Appellant also assigns as error the overruling of his objection to the argument of the county attorney relative to appellant's previous convictions. The trial judge correctly ruled that the prosecuting attorney could argue the previous convictions as shown by the evidence with respect impeachment of appellant's testimony. Our examination of the record reveals that the remarks of the prosecuting attorney were within the proper bounds. However, we deem it proper to point out that an accused's previous convictions are admitted only for the purpose of showing his credibility as a witness and any reference thereto by the prosecution in arguments should be confined to that purpose. Appellant also contends that the district attorney made an improper argument relative to the fact that the appellant elected prior to trial to remain silent when questioned by the officers and did not tell his version of the incident until he testified in court. Appellant did not object to the testimony in this regard and made no contemporaneous objection to this part of the argument. No objection was called to the attention of the trial court until after the jury verdict and a motion for a new trial were made. We have said in numerous cases that even though the remarks complained of may have been improper, the only way to preserve the right to have the matter reviewed on appeal is by objection at the time the improper remarks are made and moving for a mistrial in the event the court fails to take such action as may be necessary to neutralize the effect of such improper arguments. It is only when the argument is so inflammatory as to require the entry of the trial judge of his motion that we will review the argument in the absence of objections. Ford v. State, 227 So. 2d 454 (Miss. 1969); Coburn v. State, 250 Miss. 684, 168 So. 2d 123 (1964). Finally, appellant urges that the trial court was in error in failing to apply the Weathersby rule and grant his request for a peremptory instruction. We find no merit in this contention. We have had the occasion heretofore to point out that it is a rare case that meets the requirements of the Weathersby rule. The rule is where the defendant or the defendant's witnesses are the only eye witnesses to a homicide, their version, if reasonable must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted by a credible witness or witnesses for the state or by the physical facts or by facts of common knowledge. Appellant admits striking the deceased several times with a tire tool, his justification was that the deceased was advancing on him with a knife. He never explained why it was necessary for him to beat her to death in order to protect himself. Therefore, under his own version, it was a jury question as to whether he used unreasonable force or excessive force to protect himself. Appellant admits that his testimony and that of the state is in conflict as to whether the deceased was abducted and whether or not appellant left the body of the deceased unclothed. Appellant denied that he dragged the body of the deceased from the road into the ditch. But the body was found in the ditch, and there were signs indicating that the body had been dragged from the road into the ditch. These contradictions together with the fact that the appellant immediately fled and never reported the incident to the officers or anyone else were certainly sufficient to take this case out of the purview of the Weathersby rule. McElwee v. State, 255 So. 2d 669 (Miss. 1971); Ross v. State, 234 Miss. 309, 106 So. 2d 56 (1958). After a careful consideration of the errors assigned, we find no reversible error. The evidence is ample to support the verdict of the jury. Therefore, this case must be and is affirmed. Affirmed. RODGERS, P.J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON and BROOM, JJ., concur.