Opinion ID: 1914247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was the court in error by denying appellants' request for a directed verdict and peremptory instruction?

Text: It is elemental that the responsibility for determining disputed questions of fact rests with the jury. This principle has been stated by this and other courts in cases too numerous to cite. A few are: Cutrer v. State, 410 So.2d 1308 (Miss. 1982); Davis v. State, 320 So.2d 789 (Miss. 1975); Ainsworth v. State, 304 So.2d 656 (Miss. 1974); McLelland v. State, 204 So.2d 158 (Miss. 1967); and Cobb v. State, 235 Miss. 57, 108 So.2d 719 (1959). Another elemental principle is that this Court in reviewing whether or not the jury had sufficient evidence to make its finding of fact is required to examine the facts most favorable to the party against whom the motion for directed verdict or peremptory instruction is requested, in this case the state. Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601 (Miss. 1980); Wright v. State, 387 So.2d 735 (Miss. 1980); and Saik v. State, 387 So.2d 751 (Miss. 1980). See also Jackson v. Virginia 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Regardless of the above set out principle, we carefully have studied every word of the trial record and state without reservation that the evidence clearly made a case for the jury to decide. Appellants claim that they were entitled to the peremptory instruction because the state failed to prove that Harris was a police officer acting within the scope of his duty and that the acts of appellants were done with proper public authority and therefore were justifiable. From the above discussion of evidence, it is undisputed that James Harris had been a full-time police officer for the Town of Tchula for more than four years. The only question was whether or not he was on duty at the time of the incidents revealed in the record. There was a conflict on this question. Harris stated positively that he was on duty. This was confirmed by Andrews whose position was questionable, to say the least, at that time. Harris' position was entirely different from that of Andrews. Whether or not Harris was acting within the scope of his office as a full-time policeman depends on whether or not he was performing a legal duty associated with his office as distinguished from engaging in a personal frolic of his own. United States v. Martinez, 465 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.1972); United States v. Cho Po Sun, 409 F.2d 489 (2d Cir.1969); cert den., 396 U.S. 864, 90 S.Ct. 140, 24 L.Ed.2d 118. See also Watkins v. State, 350 So.2d 1384 (Miss. 1977); and Gardner v. State, 368 So.2d 245 (Miss. 1979). Harris' position did not depend upon the legal status of Andrews. Conceding that the exact legal position of Andrews was questionable, the position of Harris clearly was dictated by the orders of a majority of the Board of Aldermen. Even though Carthan denied that the subject of electing a police chief was discussed at this special meeting, the testimony of the City Clerk McPhail and the minutes reveal otherwise. All of this made a question for the jury to decide as to the status of Andrews and without a doubt it was, to say the least, a question for the jury as to the status of Harris. Appellant Carthan contends that he as mayor had authority under the applicable statutes to do what he did on the night in question. Admittedly, in addition to giving the mayor a vote in case of a tie, he had the superintending control of all the officers and affairs of the municipality and had the duty to take care that the laws and ordinances are executed. Code § 21-3-15 (1972). The question here is whether or not it was a jury question as to Mayor Carthan, along with the other appellants, exceeding that authority. We find that there clearly was such a jury question. We are without any power to overturn that finding of fact by the jury. It certainly cannot be argued that the jury had to accept as law that the mayor was exercising his statutory power properly when he got together a group of armed men and led them into the city hall with guns in their hands and the incidents occurred as hereinbefore related. The jury had the right to disbelieve the mayor when he testified that Andrews pulled his gun at a time when seven or eight guns admittedly were pointed in Andrews' direction. It was a question for the jury as to whether or not the mayor led his group into exceeding the statutory authority. Appellants' Assignments of Error Numbers 3 and 8 involve the same situation. After the jury returned its verdict, a member of the clerk's office found twelve slips of paper in the jury room. Eleven of these had the words guilty of simple assault written on them and the twelfth had guilty of simple assault on a police officer written on it. The jury received complete instructions from the court that if they did not find appellants guilty of aggravated assault on a police officer they could find them guilty of simple assault on a police officer acting in the line of duty. The jury on instructions from the court returned seven separate verdicts as follows: We the jury find the defendant ____ guilty of simple assault on a law enforcement officer. [The name of each of the appellants was inserted where the blank appears above.] The jury was polled and each stated it was his or her verdict. The jury clearly followed the instructions of the court. The jurors found from the evidence that none of the appellants were guilty of the charge for which they were indicted and which carried a heavier penalty but found them guilty of a lesser charge of simple assault. We find no error in these assignments of error by appellants. Appellants contend that the court erred in granting Instruction Nos. 2 and 4 for the state. We have carefully examined these instructions and find them to be proper. Instruction No. 2 authorized the jury to find the lesser offense than that charged in the indictment as we have above discussed. Instruction No. 3 advised the jury that when two or more people act in concert committing a crime, then all who participate in the common plan are equally responsible. The law is clear that persons committing crime in concert may be found equally guilty by the jury. Anderson v. State, supra ; Bass v. State, supra ; McBroom v. State, supra ; Hardy v. State, supra; Kittrell v. State, supra ; and McCoy v. State, supra . Appellants complain of the court refusing Instructions 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. At the outset, the record reveals that Instruction No. 7 was withdrawn by appellants. Instruction 10 was the request for peremptory instruction which we have already discussed. The remaining instructions requested by appellants and refused by the trial court are as follows: Instruction No. 2 The Court instructs the jury that at all times relevant hereto Eddie J. Carthan was the duly elected Mayor of the Town of Tchula, and as Mayor, he has superintending control of all officers and affairs of the Town of Tchula and is charged by law to take care that the laws and ordinances are properly executed. Instruction No. 3 The Court instructs you that the Mayor has the duty to be active and vigilant in enforcing all laws and ordinances for the government of the Town of Tchula and to cause all other officers to be dealt with promptly for any neglect or violation of duty. Instruction No. 6 The Court instructs you that before Jim Andrews could lawfully perform any act as Chief of Police or Town Marshall he must first take the oath of office and have executed and filed with the Clerk of the Town, and subject to the approval of the Mayor and Clerk, a good and sufficient bond in an amount not less than ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00), nor more than TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the exact amount having been fixed by the Board of Aldermen, which bond is conditioned upon the faithful performance of the duties of his office. Instruction No. 8 The Court instructs you that Eddie J. Carthan, as Mayor of the Town of Tchula, is given the lawful power to veto, in writing, giving his reasons therefor, any measure passed by the Board of Aldermen. Any measure so vetoed may be adopted notwithstanding; if two-thirds of the Aldermen vote therefor. Instruction No. 9 The Court instructs you that two-thirds of the five member Board of Aldermen of the Town of Tchula is four (4) votes. The above set out instructions, the refusal of which is complained of by appellants as being erroneously refused, clearly were erroneous. They all were abstract statements of law, mostly the quoting of statutes describing the duties of municipal officials, principally the mayor. We have held in many cases that abstract instructions such as the ones complained of here should not have been given. Harkins v. Paschall, 348 So.2d 1019 (Miss. 1977); Freeze v. Taylor, 257 So.2d 509 (Miss. 1972); New Orleans J. & G.N.R. Co. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607 (1869); 53 Am. Jur., Trial § 573, p. 451 (1945); 38 Am. Jur., Negligence § 370, p. 1089 (1941). The trial judge granted defendants' Instruction No. D-4 which was not in the abstract and included the matters sought to be placed before the jury in the refused instructions. D-4 reads as follows: The court instructs the jury that if you find from the evidence that the Mayor, Eddie J. Carthan believed a breach of the peace was taking place in the Town of Tchula on April 30, 1980, and because of his belief, the Mayor exercised his lawfully (sic) authority to call on the policemen and other citizen (sic) to aid in enforcing the laws and that the acts, if any, of Eddie James Carthan, John Dale, Samuel Callahan, David McLaurin, Tom Common, R. James Matthews, and Garrett Johnson toward James Harris were justified and necessary in discharging the legal duty of the Mayor or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace, then you shall find the defendants not guilty. In addition to refusing Instruction No. 6 as being in the abstract and not related to other facts necessary for consideration by the jury, the instruction relates only to the controversy as to whether or not Jim Andrews had fully qualified as chief of police on the night in question. As we have seen, this case does not involve an alleged attack on Andrews and is not determined by whether or not he was fully qualified by not performing the acts set out in the instruction. The indictment and the trial were for an alleged attack on an admittedly full-time policeman, James Harris. The question for the jury to have considered was whether or not Harris, admittedly on twenty-four-hour service, was acting in the furtherance of that service and his duty at the time of the alleged assault. The jury was fully instructed on this question. Appellants complain of the Court instructing the jury that they could bring back a verdict of a lesser included offense from that charged in the indictment. The trial judge gave the jury a separate instruction on each defendant and each instruction clearly and plainly advised as to the four alternatives that could be found by the jury: namely, (1) guilty as charged, (2) guilty of aggravated assault, (3) guilty of simple assault on a police officer, or (4) not guilty. In the first place there was no objection in the record to these instructions and this assignment of error should not be considered here. We, however, considered the assignment and find no error. The law is clear that on indictment for any offense the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense as charged or any attempt to commit the same offense or may find him guilty of an inferior offense. Code, § 99-19-5 (1972). This Court has held that simple assault is a constituent offense of assault to kill and murder. Howard v. State, 212 Miss. 722, 55 So.2d 436 (1951); Blakely v. State, 165 Miss. 503, 144 So. 864 (1932); Bedell v. State, 50 Miss. 492 (1874). It certainly cannot be said that simple assault is not a constituent offense of aggravated assault. We already have discussed Assignment of Error No. 7. It is that the verdict of the jury is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. As stated at the outset, we are an appellate court whose obligation and duty is to review questions of law which include the decision as to whether or not a jury had sufficient facts to make its finding. As hereinbefore emphatically pointed out, we can reach no conclusion other than this cause was purely and simply a jury question. The jury saw fit to find the appellants not guilty of the crime for which they were indicted, but guilty of the lesser offense under which each was sentenced. The imprisonment sentences for six of the appellants were suspended. The imprisonment sentence for the seventh was much less than the maximum authorized by statute. After a careful study of the record and briefs in this cause and hearing the oral argument, we find that there is no reversible error shown. The cause is therefore affirmed as to all appellants. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SUGG and WALKER, P. JJ., and BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, JJ., concur.