Title: Boyd v. State

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

406 So. 2d 824 (1981) Billy Ray BOYD v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 52907. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 9, 1981. *825 J. Kennedy Turner, Philadelphia, for appellant. Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Robert D. Findley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before SMITH, P.J., and WALKER and BOWLING, JJ. WALKER, Justice, for the Court. This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Neshoba County wherein Billy Ray Boyd was convicted of aggravated assault upon Constable Bennie Lee Adkins and sentenced to serve a term of twenty-five years in the custody of the Department of Corrections. He appeals from this conviction contending the constable was unlawfully arresting his brother-in-law and he was privileged to aid in the resistance of that arrest. As the state's only witness, Constable Adkins testified he was attacked by the appellant as he attempted to arrest Charles McBeath for a misdemeanor at McBeath's home in the Beashia Community of Neshoba County. The witnesses for appellant Boyd testified that Constable Adkins told McBeath to come with him, that he had a warrant for his arrest, but that Adkins never showed McBeath the warrant nor informed him of the reason for the arrest. The warrant does not appear in the record. McBeath testified he told Adkins that he would go with him after he used the bathroom, but that Adkins struck him with a blackjack which knocked him to the ground. Appellant, Boyd, testified he was carrying his baby daughter in his arms and attempted to aid McBeath when Adkins also struck him with the blackjack. Appellant testified he sat his daughter on the car, and used his pocket knife in an attempt to defend himself from the constable who continued to swing the blackjack. Constable Adkins testified McBeath was swinging at him from one direction and that appellant Boyd came at him with a knife from the other direction. Adkins testified the pocket knife had a blade six to seven inches long. In the affray Constable Adkins' forearm was cut requiring eight days hospitalization. Appellant contends the arrest was unlawful because the testimony was undisputed that Constable Adkins did not show a warrant to McBeath nor inform McBeath the reason for the arrest. The fact that the constable did not have possession of the warrant or show it to the accused would not necessarily invalidate the arrest. The requirements set forth in Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-3-7 (1972) provide, in pertinent part: In Torrence v. State, 283 So. 2d 595 (Miss. 1973), this Court held that the officer who knew of an outstanding warrant had probable cause to arrest defendant on a misdemeanor charge not committed in his presence even though he did not have the warrant in his possession and the defendant was not entitled to resist the arrest. Neither did the failure of Adkins to inform McBeath of the object or cause of the arrest necessarily make the arrest unlawful. However, the failure to inform a defendant of the reason for his arrest has been held to place upon the state the burden of proving probable cause for the arrest. Clay v. State, 184 So. 2d 403 (Miss. 1966); Upshaw v. State, 350 So. 2d 1358 (Miss. 1977). In the Clay case, defendant was convicted of operating a confidence game and appealed his conviction contending he was illegally arrested. There was no testimony that the accused was informed by the arresting officer of the object and cause of his arrest. The Court held: In the present case it is undisputed that Constable Adkins neither had possession of the warrant nor informed McBeath of the reason for his arrest. Nowhere in the record did the prosecution present any evidence to show that there was probable cause for arresting McBeath, and neither the affidavit nor the arrest warrant appears in the record. Therefore, so far as this record reveals, the arrest was unlawful. Appellant finally contends that because the arrest was unlawful, the trial court erred in refusing to grant certain jury instructions dealing with self defense. These instructions were properly refused by the trial judge with the exception of D-19, which provided as follows: It is fundamental that a person has a right to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest. 6 Am.Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 79, p. 71-72 (2nd ed. 1963) states: 6A C.J.S. Assault and Battery § 92, p. 481 (1975) states in pertinent part: See also Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711 (1926); Smith v. State, 208 So. 2d 746 (Miss. 1968); Ferguson v. State, 242 So. 2d 448 (Miss. 1970). Courts have generally held that a third party may interfere in the resistance of an unlawful arrest. This privilege is, however, strictly dependent upon the rights of the party sought to be arrested. E. Fisher, Laws of Arrests 374-375 (1967); W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law § 54 (1972); 6A C.J.S. Assault and Battery § 93, p. 484-485 (1975) provides as follows: See also Rogers v. Huber, 239 So. 2d 333 (Miss. 1970) where this Court held in a civil suit that an assistant coach could come to the aid of the head coach in an altercation where he did not use unreasonable force even though the head coach was not in immediate danger of great bodily harm. We conclude, therefore, that McBeath had a right to reasonably resist the unlawful arrest and that appellant could aid him in resisting that arrest by force not to exceed McBeath's privilege to defend himself. The remaining assignments of error are without merit. We find for the above reasons and from a review of the entire record that the arrest was unlawful and that jury instruction D-19 was improperly refused by the trial judge. Therefore, this case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, BROOM, LEE, BOWLING and HAWKINS, JJ., concur.