Title: DePriest v. State

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

377 So. 2d 615 (1979) Edward DePRIEST v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 51411. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 5, 1979. *616 Farese, Farese & Farese, John Booth Farese, Ashland, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Carolyn B. Mills, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before ROBERTSON, P.J., and BROOM and COFER, JJ. ROBERTSON, Presiding Justice, for the Court: Edward DePriest and James Crockett were jointly indicted in the Circuit Court of Lee County for the sale of "a quantity of Phenmetrazine, a Schedule II drug under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act of the State of Mississippi", to Shirlene Anderson, an undercover agent of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics. After a full trial, the jury returned a verdict of "guilty as charged" against Edward DePriest. When the jury could not agree on a verdict for James Crockett, a mistrial was declared as to him. DePriest was sentenced to six years in a facility designated by the Department of Corrections, with two years suspended for good behavior. DePriest has assigned three errors: About 8:00 p.m. January 28, 1977, Shirlene Anderson and a confidential informant entered the Top Out Club in Tupelo. DePriest, the manager of the Club, came over to Agent Anderson's table and introduced himself. Shortly thereafter, James Crockett came over to Anderson's table and introduced himself. Crockett asked Anderson if she used drugs, and if she would like to buy some preludin, which is an amphetamine drug. Agent Anderson replied that she did not use drugs but would like to buy some for a friend, whereupon Crockett went up to the bar. Anderson testified: On redirect examination, Anderson testified: This was not a wholly circumstantial evidence case. Part of the evidence was direct and part circumstantial. So it was a case for the jury to decide under proper instructions. It was not a case for a directed verdict or peremptory instruction, so the trial court was correct in overruling defendant DePriest's motions for such instructions. Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to give a circumstantial evidence instruction. Not being a wholly circumstantial evidence case, the trial court was correct in not giving a circumstantial evidence instruction that the defendant must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis. It is apparent to this Court that counsel for defendant DePriest did not consider this a wholly circumstantial evidence case because when the instructions were being passed on the trial judge deleted from court's instructions 2 and 3 "and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis." The court then remarked: To the court's question, DePriest's counsel answered: Not only did DePriest's counsel not object to court's instructions 2 and 3 but also was granted defense instruction 2 that required the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt only. Rule 42, Mississippi Supreme Court Rules, provides: According to the record, defense counsel had no objection to the court's amended instructions 2 and 3, so there's no question that our Rule 42 applies and thus there is no merit in the defendant's contention that the trial court erred when it failed to grant a circumstantial evidence instruction. Lastly, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing inconsistent jury verdicts for co-defendants Crockett and DePriest. *618 This same contention was made in Newell v. State, 308 So. 2d 68 (Miss. 1975). In Newell, the Court followed the modern rule that "criminal verdicts as between two or more defendants tried together need not demonstrate rational consistency." In Newell, one defendant was convicted of rape while his co-defendant was acquitted of the came charge. In Newell, we refused to reverse on account of inconsistent verdicts. In the case at bar, a mistrial was declared as to co-defendant Crockett because of a hung jury. This is not a ground for reversal of the guilty verdict as to DePriest. His conviction and sentence are, therefore, affirmed. This case was considered by a conference of the judges en banc. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH, P.J., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.