Leverett v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Leverett v. State

197 So. 2d 889

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedApril 17, 1967

Docket44428

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 197 So. 2d 889 (Leverett v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leverett v. State, 197 So. 2d 889 (Mich. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

197 So.2d 889 (1967)

Charles LEVERETT
v.
STATE of Mississippi.

No. 44428.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 17, 1967.

*890 Lomax B. Lamb, Jr., Marks, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by R. Hugo Newcomb, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

BRADY, Justice.

An analytical study of the record and briefs in this case convinces us that a question of fact was properly presented for consideration by the jury, and the evidence is sufficient to justify the verdict of guilty. The record indicates that the jury was justified in finding that appellant had stolen property in his possession at the time of his arrest and that he failed to give a reasonable explanation for such possession. McBroom v. State, 222 Miss. 655, 76 So.2d 819 (1955); Haney v. State, 199 Miss. 568, 24 So.2d 778 (1946). Furthermore, the proof is not based upon circumstantial evidence alone, since appellant was arrested within approximately two hours of the time the alarm went out on the radio announcing the theft of the batteries and radios subsequently found in his possession.

Appellant failed to request from the trial court an instruction announcing to the jury that the burden was upon the State to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis. For this reason appellant cannot here for the first time urge the failure of the State to so prove him guilty.

In Collins v. State, 173 Miss. 179, 180, 159 So. 865 (1935), we stated:

The Supreme Court is a court of appeals, it has no original jurisdiction; it can only try questions that have been tried and passed upon by the court from which the appeal is taken. Whatever remedy appellant has is in the trial court, not in this court. This court can only pass on the question after the trial court has done so.

For these reasons the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P.J., and RODGERS, JONES and INZER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

197 So.2d 889 (1967)

Charles LEVERETT
v.
STATE of Mississippi.

No. 44428.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 17, 1967.

*890 Lomax B. Lamb, Jr., Marks, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by R. Hugo Newcomb, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

BRADY, Justice.

An analytical study of the record and briefs in this case convinces us that a question of fact was properly presented for consideration by the jury, and the evidence is sufficient to justify the verdict of guilty. The record indicates that the jury was justified in finding that appellant had stolen property in his possession at the time of his arrest and that he failed to give a reasonable explanation for such possession. McBroom v. State, 222 Miss. 655, 76 So.2d 819 (1955); Haney v. State, 199 Miss. 568, 24 So.2d 778 (1946). Furthermore, the proof is not based upon circumstantial evidence alone, since appellant was arrested within approximately two hours of the time the alarm went out on the radio announcing the theft of the batteries and radios subsequently found in his possession.

Appellant failed to request from the trial court an instruction announcing to the jury that the burden was upon the State to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis. For this reason appellant cannot here for the first time urge the failure of the State to so prove him guilty.

In Collins v. State, 173 Miss. 179, 180, 159 So. 865 (1935), we stated:

The Supreme Court is a court of appeals, it has no original jurisdiction; it can only try questions that have been tried and passed upon by the court from which the appeal is taken. Whatever remedy appellant has is in the trial court, not in this court. This court can only pass on the question after the trial court has done so.

For these reasons the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P.J., and RODGERS, JONES and INZER, JJ., concur.

Mississippi Apartment Association, Metro MS Rentals, LLC, KLT Properties, LLC, KKR Properties, LLC, GBS Homes, LLC, Hope Housing, LLC, REZ Properties, LLC, REZ Properties 2, LLC, REZ Properties 3, LLC, REZ Properties at Northtown Place, LLC, CJ Rose Properties, LLC, Lee Bernard, T&L Properties, LLC, Equity Group, LLC and Ironwood Properties, LLC v. City of Jackson, Mississippi and Chloe Dotson, Director of Department of Planning and Development, In Her Official Capacity

Mississippi Supreme Court, 2025

Pascagoula School District v. Tucker

91 So. 3d 598 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2012)

Point South Land Trust v. Gutierrez

997 So. 2d 967 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2008)

Luse v. Luse

992 So. 2d 659 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2008)

Ory v. Ory