Title: Lovelace v. State
Citation: 410 So. 2d 876
Docket Number: 53327
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: February 17, 1982

410 So. 2d 876 (1982) Gartha Lee LOVELACE v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 53327. Supreme Court of Mississippi. February 17, 1982. Thomas L. Kesler, Columbus, for appellant. *877 Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Amy D. Whitten, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before SUGG, P.J., and WALKER and HAWKINS, JJ. SUGG, Presiding Justice, for the Court: Gartha Lee Lovelace was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County for the crime of armed robbery, and sentenced to serve a term of fifteen years. The only assignment of error is: The assignment of error is divisible into three issues. First, whether evidence of a prior conviction may be introduced to impeach a witness who does not deny the previous conviction, but testifies he does not remember it. Second, whether the introduction of an abstract of court record impermissibly placed before the jury details, i.e., punishment for the previous crime. Third, whether the abstract of court record was competent evidence of the prior criminal conviction of the appellant. Section 13-1-13 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) provides: In Matthews v. State, 243 Miss. 568, 139 So. 2d 386 (1962) we stated: See also, Wells v. State, 288 So. 2d 860 (Miss. 1974); Berry v. State, 212 Miss. 164, 54 So. 2d 222 (1951); Powers v. State, 156 Miss. 316, 126 So. 12 (1930); Alabama and V.R. Company v. Thornhill, 106 Miss. 387, 63 So. 674 (1913); Cook v. State, 85 Miss. 738, 38 So. 110 (1904). Appellant contends that he did not deny his prior conviction for petit larceny and argues the following questions and answers during trial support his contention. When appellant was asked if he had been convicted of petit larceny on July 23, 1979, he did not deny the conviction, but stated that he could not recall it and that he did not remember "that one." Appellant argues that proof of a prior conviction can be introduced to contradict a witness by showing a prior conviction only if the witness denies the conviction. Building on this premise, he then argues that if a witness does not deny a former conviction but merely states he has no recollection of the conviction, no evidence of such conviction may be introduced. We do not agree with this argument and hold that if a witness does not deny a previous conviction but states that he cannot recall the conviction, evidence of the prior conviction may be introduced under section 13-1-13 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972); otherwise, the purpose of the statute would be defeated. In interpreting section 13-1-13, we held: This case simply holds that, if a witness admits a conviction of a previous crime, he may not then be interrogated to show the punishment inflicted. However, appellant argues that the admission of an abstract of the justice court docket showing his previous conviction of petit larceny including the punishment inflicted is thus contrary to our holding in Hartfield v. State, 186 Miss. 75, 189 So. 530 (1939) wherein we stated: Hartfield did not testify in his own defense so the words enclosed in parenthesis were not dispositive of any issue in that case. When a witness does not admit a previous conviction, the only way the witness can be impeached as to a previous conviction is by introduction of evidence of such previous conviction. The witness should not then be heard to complain that the punishment inflicted was included in the copy of the record of the prior conviction because, by denying or refusing to admit a prior conviction, the witness (in this case, appellant) has forced the opposite party to introduce a record of the prior conviction to impeach his testimony. We therefore decline to follow the dictum in Hartfield. Appellant also argues that the abstract of the court record[1] showing his prior conviction was not competent evidence. Section 13-1-77 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) provides: In Vincent v. State, 200 Miss. 423, 27 So. 2d 556 (1956) appellant was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors and was punished for a second violation under section 2613, Code of 1942. His principal contention was that the record did not sufficiently show that he had been convicted of a first offense. When the case was tried, the justice of the peace before whom the first conviction was held was ill and a copy of his docket entries covering *879 the first conviction was certified by him under section 1725,[2] Code of 1942 and was introduced over the objection of appellant. In disposing of appellant's argument, the Court stated: The abstract of court record introduced in the case at bar was duly certified by Justice Court Judge C. Younger as being a true copy of his court records. Therefore, under the authority of Vincent, supra, we hold that the abstract of record was competent evidence of the fact of appellant's prior conviction of petit larceny. AFFIRMED. SMITH, P.J., and WALKER, BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, JJ., concur. PATTERSON, C.J., took no part. [1] OF COURT RECORD [2] Now section 13-1-77 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972).