Title: McCormick v. State
Citation: 377 So. 2d 1070
Docket Number: 51447
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 1979

377 So. 2d 1070 (1979) Hardy F. McCORMICK, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 51447. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 12, 1979. Rehearing Denied January 9, 1980. Thomas D. Lee, Forest, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gilfoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before ROBERTSON, P.J., and BROOM and COFER, JJ. ROBERTSON, Presiding Justice, for the Court: Hardy F. McCormick, Jr. was indicted by the grand jury of the Circuit Court of Scott County for selling marijuana. After a full trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the court sentenced him to a term of four years in the penitentiary, one year to be suspended upon payment of a fine of $3,000. McCormick assigns as error: The facts are somewhat bizarre. McCormick was a member of a band that included Joe Reed, Sid Hopper and Sandra Fowler. The band was performing at the time at a night club in Meridian. Reed, Hopper and Fowler lived together in a rented house about 10 miles north of Forest, Mississippi, and all three testified that they were present when the alleged sale of marijuana took place on January 19, 1978. A few days later the band broke up. McCormick filed charges against Hopper, alleging larceny of an amplifier. Hopper was arrested and Reed and Fowler bailed him out of the county jail. After bond was made, Joe Reed swore out an affidavit against McCormick in Justice of the Peace Wilkerson's court, charging that McCormick had sold Hopper, Reed and Fowler a package of marijuana of less than one kilo on January 19, 1978. Wilkerson advised them that he would not issue a warrant for McCormick's arrest until the evidence was in hand. Reed, Hopper and Fowler then left the Justice of the Peace court and returned in about 20 minutes with approximately 1/2 ounce of marijuana. Whereupon, an arrest warrant was issued, McCormick was arrested and later indicted for the crime of selling marijuana. The testimony of Reed, Hopper and Fowler was uncontradicted that McCormick sold them one ounce of marijuana for $12 on January 19, 1978. McCormick did not testify. On cross-examination, all three admitted that they were angry with McCormick for having filed charges against Hopper and all three admitted that they were not model, law-abiding citizens. All three admitted that they had smoked some of the marijuana they had purchased from McCormick. Hopper admitted living with Sandra Fowler when she was 17 years old without the benefit of clergy. Joe Reed had been convicted three times for the possession of marijuana and Hopper once. The defense called only one witness, Henry Crawford, who testified that he rented the house where Reed, Fowler and Hopper lived to Hopper and Fowler, that it was 10 miles from Forest and that it ordinarily took him about 30 minutes to make the round trip from Forest to the rented house. However, the witness admitted that if someone were in a hurry he could make the round trip in 20 minutes. In Stubbs v. State, 311 So. 2d 339 (Miss. 1975), this Court said: The jury obviously believed the uncontradicted testimony of Joe Reed, Sid Hopper and Sandra Fowler, even though their motives were impugned, their character somewhat tarnished, and their credibility questioned. The jury was "the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony." Their testimony of the sale of the marijuana was uncontradicted. There is no merit in this assignment of error. McCormick next contends that the lower court erred in overruling his demurrer to the indictment because the indictment was not accompanied by the foreman's affidavit as required by Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-7-9 (1978 Supp.), which statute reads as follows: This statute before the amendment of 1977 read: Chapter 307 of the General Laws of Mississippi of 1977, which was the Act amending old section 99-7-9, is styled: The language added by this Act of the Legislature to Section 99-7-9 was: The language omitted in the amending Act was: It is obvious that the purpose and intent of the Legislature in amending 99-7-9 was to do away with the necessity of having at least 12 members of the grand jury, including the foreman, physically present in court when each and every indictment was returned to the court. In our view, the amendment simply provided for *1073 an easier alternate method by which the results of the grand jury's deliberations could be made known to the court. It does not invalidate the old laborious method of having at least 12 members of the grand jury physically present when each and every indictment is returned into court. In overruling the demurrer to the indictment, the trial court stated into the record: In 1933, in Temple v. State, 165 Miss. 798, 145 So. 749, this same question was presented to this Court in a motion to quash the indictment. This Court said: Temple is still the law in Mississippi. The holdings of this Court in Temple have not been overruled, invalidated, impaired or even distinguished in any respect. In Temple, the challenge was by a motion to quash, supported by the affidavit of Temple. In the case at bar, only a demurrer to the indictment was filed. A demurrer admits all facts well pleaded and the indictment in the record shows on its face that it was endorsed by the foreman, and marked, dated, signed and filed by the circuit clerk. The amended statute (§ 99-7-9) which became effective July 1, 1977, still provides as did the old statute in effect since 1857: In Temple, this Court said: In addition, in the case at bar, the trial court stated into the record: As was said in Temple: In the case at bar, no proof of prejudice whatsoever was offered nor could any have been offered, because the test was by demurrer only. This language carried forward from the old statute into the new statute also sheds light on the intent and purpose of the Legislature: Because of the very explicit language of the statute itself brought forward continuously since 1857 and the fact that the record itself reflects that "The entire grand jury was before the Court and filed the indictments," thus showing full compliance with the old, more laborious method of presenting indictments, and the fact that there was no proof whatsoever of prejudice to the defendant, the trial court was correct in overruling the demurrer to the indictment. There being no prejudicial error shown, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. This case was considered by a conference of the judges en banc. AFFIRMED. SMITH, P.J., and SUGG, BROOM, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur. SUGG and BROOM, JJ., specially concur. PATTERSON, C.J., and WALKER, J., dissent. LEE, J., took no part. *1075 SUGG, Justice, specially concurring: I concur in the majority opinion but suggest that indictments may be presented either under the statutory or the common law procedure. The statutory method of presenting an indictment to the court is satisfied when the foreman of the grand jury, or a member of the grand jury designated by the foreman, presents the indictment to the court with the foreman's name endorsed on the indictment accompanied by his affidavit that the indictment was concurred in by twelve or more members of the jury and at least fifteen were present during all deliberations. Section 99-7-9 Mississippi Code Annotated (1978 Supp.); Mississippi General Laws, Ch. 307 (1977). Before the 1977 amendment, indictments were required to be presented to the court by the foreman of the grand jury, in the presence of at least twelve of the grand jurors, including the foreman. This statutory method of presenting an indictment to the court was merely a rescript of the common law. It was first enacted as Chapter 64, Article 257 Mississippi Code of 1857 and remained virtually unchanged until the 1977 amendment. Before the enactment of Chapter 64, Article 257, Code of 1857, indictments were presented to the court in accordance with the common law. The common law procedure for presenting indictments was described in Cachute v. State, 50 Miss. 165, 2 Harris and Simrall (1874) in the following language: Although Cachute was decided after the statute was adopted in 1857 prescribing the manner of presenting an indictment to the court, the quoted statement referred to the common law method of presenting an indictment to the court. Cachute cites three cases decided before the 1857 statute. In Friar v. State, 4 Miss. 422, 3 How. 422 (1839), the Court held that an indictment presented in open court by the grand jury was sufficient. The cases of Goodwin v. State, 12 Miss. 520, 4 S. &amp; M. 535 (1845), and Laura (a slave) v. State, 26 Miss. 174 (1853), referred to presentment of an indictment in open court by the grand jury as being the proper procedure for presenting an indictment. Although the earlier cases do not set forth in detail the procedure for presenting an indictment under the common law, these cases at least indicate that an indictment presented in open court by the grand jury was sufficient. Section 99-7-9 as amended in 1977 provides in part: "It shall not be required that the body of the grand jury be present and the roll called ..." This language leads me to the conclusion that the legislature intended to retain the common law procedure of presenting indictments to the court as an alternative method. In my opinion, indictments may be presented either in compliance with the statute or the common law. BROOM, J., joins in this opinion. WALKER, Justice, dissenting: I dissent from the majority opinion for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of Justice Lee in Jackson v. State, 377 So. 2d 1060 (Miss.) this day decided. PATTERSON, C.J., joins in this dissent.