Title: Parr v. State

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

362 So. 2d 634 (1978) Kurt F. PARR v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 50711. Supreme Court of Mississippi. September 13, 1978. Ralph W. Pringle, T. Larry Wilson, Pascagoula, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before PATTERSON, C.J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ. LEE, Justice, for the Court: Kurt F. Parr was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the murder of his wife, and sentenced to life in custody of the State Department of Corrections. He appeals to this Court and assigns the following errors in the trial below: *635 (1) The court erred in admitting into evidence prior threats which were too remote in time to the alleged incident. (2) The court erred in improperly instructing the jury. (3) The verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. (4) The court erred in overruling a motion for new trial. On the morning of February 20, 1977, the body of Eva Parr was found lying in a wooded area approximately one hundred (100) feet from a rural Jackson County road. Near the body was the deceased's automobile, which contained personal articles belonging to her. A tire on the automobile had been cut and the appearance at the scene was that someone had robbed and slain the deceased. An autopsy on the body disclosed that there was a bruise on top of the head, another in the temporal area of the head and a third on the shoulder. The cause of death was determined to be a subdural hematoma. Appellant, after having been advised of his Miranda rights, made a statement to investigating officers about Mrs. Parr's death, and he testified at the trial of the case. He said that he came home about 6:30 p.m., Mrs. Parr was in the bed, an argument ensued between them, he choked her, and she fell off the bed, striking her head on the floor, which fall resulted in her death. Appellant was the only person present at the time. He called some friends and told them about the incident, then, after advising with them, he dressed the deceased in her nurse's uniform, put her in the car, and drove to the spot where her body was found later. Appellant removed the body from the car, cut a tire, disarranged articles in the car to leave the appearance of a robbery, and was taken back to his home by the friend, who had followed him. After leaving the place where he had deposited his wife's body, appellant threw his gloves and shoes from a bridge into a bayou. Prior to his arrest, he contacted the pathologist and ascertained that the cause of death was a subdural hematoma. The record reflects that on several occasions prior to the death of Mrs. Parr, appellant had made threats to kill her. Did the trial court err in admitting into evidence prior threats which were too remote in time to the alleged incident? The State introduced in evidence threats against deceased that were made by appellant four and one-half (4 1/2) to six and one-half (6 1/2) months and thirteen (13) months and six (6) months prior to her death. Appellant contends that the threats were not competent because they were too remote and he relies on Myers v. State, 167 Miss. 76, 147 So. 308 (1933), which involved a threat by the accused made over eight (8) months prior to the victim's death and which held that the trial court did not err in excluding the threat on the ground of remoteness. He also cites Stewart v. State, 226 So. 2d 911 (Miss. 1969), wherein the trial court was held not to have erred in excluding evidence of previous threats made by the prosecuting witness toward the defendant, which occurred six (6) months before the shooting. In Carroll v. State, 196 So. 2d 878 (Miss. 1967), this Court held that evidence of statements made years before the incident were admissible where there had been a statement reviving the old threats at the time of the incident. The Court said: The record indicates that for a period before the threats were made up until the date of the homicide, there was hostility, bitterness, and ill will between the appellant and his wife. Such a situation rendered the threats relevant and competent. Grooms v. State, 357 So. 2d 292 (Miss. 1978), stated the rule for admissibility of threats as follows: We are of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the threats in evidence. Did the trial court err in improperly instructing the jury and in declining to grant a manslaughter instruction? After the jury had deliberated for three (3) hours without reaching a verdict, the trial judge gave the following instruction: The above instruction was drawn by this Court and was intended as a model instruction to be given by the trial court when a jury is unable to arrive at a verdict. In Sharplin v. State, 330 So. 2d 591 (Miss. 1976), the Court said: Appellant also complains that the court should have granted a manslaughter instruction and relies upon Wells v. State, 305 So. 2d 333 (Miss. 1974), which held that there was no evidence to support a murder charge. However, when the threats, the statement, the testimony of appellant, and others, and the conduct of appellant following the death of deceased are considered together, the evidence supports the charge of murder. Moreover, appellant did not request a manslaughter instruction but urges the Court to hold that such instruction should have been granted without a request therefor. We held in Newell v. State, 308 So. 2d 71, 78 (Miss. 1975), that the trial judge shall not be put in error for his failure to instruct on any point of law unless specifically requested in writing to do so. Consequently, there is no merit in this assignment of error. Was the verdict against the overwhelming weight of the evidence? Did the trial court err in overruling a motion for a new trial? Although appellant did not assign as error refusal of the trial court to grant him a peremptory instruction, he argues that under the Weathersby rule[1] he should be granted a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Suffice it to say, the facts stated hereinabove and the discussion under Assignment of Error No. II sufficiently answer these assigned errors. The evidence, together with reasonable inferences, presented a question of appellant's guilt for the jury to determine, and the guilty verdict is amply supported by the evidence. There being no reversible error in the trial below, the judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur. [1] Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 147 So. 481 (1933).