Title: Readus v. State
Citation: 272 So. 2d 659
Docket Number: 47060
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: January 29, 1973

272 So. 2d 659 (1973) Willie Lee READUS v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 47060. Supreme Court of Mississippi. January 29, 1973. John R. Poole, Jackson, Josephine Hood, Canton, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gilfoy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. SUGG, Justice: Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for the murder of his wife. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Mississippi State Penitentiary by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Mississippi. Appellant's defense was that the shooting was accidental and that he did all within his power to save his wife's life after the shooting. On appeal, appellant assigns the following errors: Appellant carried his wife and stepson, J.D. Beale, to visit with relatives of deceased on Saturday night, August 8, 1971. Appellant then went to the Tin Top Cafe and sometime between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. was seen with a shotgun and, according to witnesses, made the statement he was going to kill somebody "'foe day in the mornin'." Appellant admitted having a shotgun at the Tin Top Cafe but denied making the above statement. At about 2:00 a.m. on Sunday, August 9, 1971, appellant picked up his wife and stepson at the home of her relatives and returned home. Appellant and his wife "fussed" on the way home, and after their arrival, J.D. Beale stated that appellant said, "Don't you know I'll blow your damn head off." Appellant then shot his wife in the leg and with the help of J.D. Beale, carried her to the University Hospital in Jackson, Mississippi, driving at speeds of 90 to 100 miles per hour in order to get her to the hospital as quickly as possible. The deceased died from loss of blood on the way to the hospital. On redirect examination J.D. Beale, the son of deceased, stated that appellant shot at his mother on a previous occasion. A portion of his testimony follows: The witness, Beale, stated that appellant shot at his mother the first time in the Spring of 1971, but on cross-examination admitted that he did not know exactly when the shot was fired. The court sustained the objection of appellant to the introduction of the prior shooting on the basis that the witness was not certain as to what time the shooting occurred. Thereupon, appellant moved for a mistrial in the following language: In May v. State, 199 So. 2d 635 (Miss. 1967), the defendant was questioned about shooting at his wife about five or six months prior to the trial and he denied the incident. One of his children testified on rebuttal that defendant shot at her mother and a younger sister as they left her house. The Court stated that evidence of the prior shooting was admissible in the following language: *661 The case was reversed and on retrial appellant was again convicted of murder and in May v. State, 211 So. 2d 845 (Miss. 1968), the Court held that testimony about the prior shooting was admissible. The Court stated: The general rule is that conviction should be based on evidence showing guilt of the particular offense charged in the indictment, and proof which shows or tends to show that accused is guilty of the commission of other crimes and offenses at other times, even though they are of the same nature as the one charged in the indictment, is incompetent and inadmissible for the purpose of showing the commission of the particular crime charged. There are certain exceptions to the general rule and in Hawkins v. State, 224 Miss. 309, 80 So. 2d 1 (1955), this Court stated: The court properly overruled the motion for a mistrial and we hold that evidence of the prior shooting should have been admitted as bearing on the question of whether or not the shooting in which deceased lost her life was accidental as claimed by the appellant. The prior shooting incident in this case is an exception to the general rule and would tend to show the intent of appellant and absence of accident in the shooting which caused the death of his wife. In the second and third assignments of error, appellant complains that he was not allowed to present four witnesses to impeach the testimony of J.D. Beale by showing prior inconsistent statements made in their presence. The lower court ruled a proper predicate was not laid for the introduction of the witnesses to impeach the testimony of Beale. Appellant then sought to recall Beale for further cross-examination in order to lay a proper predicate. The court refused to allow appellant to recall Beale for further cross-examination but offered to allow defense counsel to recall J.D. Beale for further examination as a witness for the defense. *662 In Chatman v. State, 244 Miss. 659, 145 So. 2d 707 (1962), a rape conviction was reversed when the defense was not allowed to recall the prosecutrix as an adverse witness in order to ask her if she stated she thought the rape was a joke. The Court stated: Appellant examined the four witnesses outside the hearing of the jury and their testimony, if believed, was very important to the defense because it would show prior inconsistent statements made by the chief witness for the State, J.D. Beale. It is apparent from the record that the testimony of Beale was an important factor in the jury verdict, and under the particular circumstances of this case, counsel should have been permitted to recall the witness Beale for the purpose of laying a predicate so that evidence of the four witnesses tendered would be admissible for the purpose of impeaching his credibility. For this reason, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. Reversed and remanded. RODGERS, P.J., and PATTERSON, SMITH and BROOM, JJ., concur.