Home/Mississippi Supreme Court/Pieper v. State

Pieper v. State

134 So. 2d 157, 242 Miss. 49, 1961 Miss. LEXIS 529
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 6, 1961
Docket41951
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 134 So. 2d 157 (Pieper 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
Pieper v. State, 134 So. 2d 157, 242 Miss. 49, 1961 Miss. LEXIS 529 (Mich. 1961).

Opinion

Arrington, J.

Appellant was jointly indicted with William D. Rucker for grand larceny. Appellant was tried separately, and appeals from a judgment of conviction.

The State offered Rucker as a witness against appellant. While Rucker was on the stand on direct testimony, the State pleaded surprise and was granted the right to cross-examine Rucker. While cross-examining Rucker the district attorney brought out that Rucker had entered a plea of guilty to the crime and proved that Rucker had made an out-of-court statement that he, Rucker, and the appellant had stolen the property described in the indictment. Appellent was not present when this extrajudicial statement was alleged to have been made. All this was over the objection of appellant.

It was error to inform the jury that Rucker had entered a plea of guilty. This Court holds that where two or more persons are jointly indicted for the same offense, but are separately tried, a judgment of conviction against one of them is not competent on the trial of the other inasmuch as his plea of guilty or conviction is no evidence of the guilt of the accused. Pickens v. State, 129 Miss. 191, 91 So. 906.

*51 It was also error for the court to admit evidence that Rucker made a statement sometime between the date of the crime and the trial to the effect that he, Rucker, and appellant committed the crime. Such statement, not having been made in the presence of appellant, was not competent against appellant. Grantham v. State, 167 Miss. 221, 149 So. 798, and authorities therein cited.

For these errors, the case is reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Lee, P. J., and McElroy, Roclgers and Jones, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Eric Ramone Sharkey v. State of Mississippi
265 So. 3d 151 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2019)
Randall v. State
806 So. 2d 185 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2001)
Armon Andre Randall v. State of Mississippi
Mississippi Supreme Court, 1998
Williams v. State
595 So. 2d 1299 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1992)
Johns v. State
592 So. 2d 86 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1992)
Johnson v. State
477 So. 2d 196 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1985)
Wallace v. State
466 So. 2d 900 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1985)
Robinson v. State
465 So. 2d 1065 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1985)
Henderson v. State
403 So. 2d 139 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1981)
Ivy v. State
301 So. 2d 292 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1974)
McCray v. State
293 So. 2d 807 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1974)
Reid v. State
266 So. 2d 21 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1972)
Buckley v. State
223 So. 2d 524 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1969)
State v. Thornhill
171 So. 2d 308 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1965)
Bynum v. State
137 So. 2d 514 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 So. 2d 157, 242 Miss. 49, 1961 Miss. LEXIS 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pieper-v-state-miss-1961.