Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Turner v. State

February 04, 1999

EDWIN HART TURNER
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Pittman, Presiding Justice

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 2/15/97

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. C. E. MORGAN, III

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - DEATH PENALTY - DIRECT APPEAL

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 2/4/99

EN BANC.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

¶1. The case at bar is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi, after a change of venue from Carroll County, Mississippi, First Judicial District. Turner was indicted by the Grand Jury of Carroll County, Mississippi, First Judicial District, on May 20, 1996, in a two count indictment charging him in Count I with the December 13, 1995, capital murder of Eddie Brooks during the commission of an armed robbery in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)(e) and in Count II with the December 13, 1995, capital murder of Everett Curry during the commission of an armed robbery in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)(e). Turner was tried, and the jury, after deliberation, found him guilty of capital murder on both Counts I and II on February 13, 1997. The jury then heard evidence in aggravation and mitigation of sentence. After deliberation, on February 14, 1997, the jury returned the following verdicts in proper form sentencing Turner to death on both Counts I and II.

¶2. The Count I verdict states:

We, the Jury, unanimously find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the following facts existed at the time of the commission of the capital murder charged in Count I of the indictment:

1. That the defendant actually killed Eddie Brooks.

2. That the defendant attempted to kill Eddie Brooks.

3. That the defendant intended that the killing of Eddie Brooks takeplace.

4. That the defendant contemplated that lethal force would be employed.

Next, we the jury, unanimously find that the aggravating circumstances of:

The capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain during the course of an armed robbery.

exists beyond a reasonable doubt and is sufficient to impose the death penalty and that there are insufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances, and we further find unanimously that the defendant should suffer death as to Count I of the indictment.

/s/Earl J. McGehee Foreman of the Jury

¶3. The Count II verdict states:

We, the Jury, unanimously find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the following facts existed at the time of the commission of the capital murder charged in Count II of the indictment:

1. That the defendant actually killed Everett Curry.

2 That the defendant attempted to kill Everett Curry.

3. That the defendant intended that the killing of Everett Curry takeplace.

4. That the defendant contemplated that lethal force would be employed.

Next, we the jury, unanimously find that the aggravating circumstances of:

The capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain during the course of an armed robbery.

exists beyond a reasonable doubt and is sufficient to impose the death penalty and that there are insufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances, and we further find unanimously that the defendant should suffer death as to Count II of the indictment.

/s/Earl J. McGehee Foreman of the Jury

¶2. After the sentence of death was imposed by the jury, the trial court set an execution date of March 28, 1997. Turner's motion for new trial was denied on March 25, 1997. *fn1 Turner perfected his appeal on April 24, 1997. Turner presently awaits the outcome of this appeal in the Maximum Security Unit of the State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi.

¶3. Turner has raised thirteen (13) assignments of error for review by this Court:

I. THE ARREST OF TURNER WAS ILLEGAL PURSUANT TO MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-3-7 AND SUBSEQUENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE VIOLATED THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THEIR MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTIONAL COUNTERPARTS.

II. COUPLING A VAGUE INDICTMENT WHICH DID NOT FAIRLY APPRISE THE DEFENDANT WITH NOTICE OF WHICH UNDERLYING FELONY WOULD BE PURSUED ALONG WITH A DUPLICITOUS JURY INSTRUCTION VIOLATED THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.

III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING TURNER'S PROPOSED LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE INSTRUCTION.

IV. THE PROSECUTOR ENGAGED IN WHOLLY IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SENTENCING PHASE WITNESSES SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INJECTING PREJUDICE TO INFLAME THE JURY.

V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EXCLUDING RELEVANTMITIGATION EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ANDSTATE CONSTITUTIONS AND STATE LAW.

VI. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN LIMITING CONSIDERATION OF MENTAL CAPACITY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE TO "SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT."

VII. THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE GUILT PHASE EVIDENCE AT THE SENTENCING PHASE VIOLATED STATE LAW AND THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS.

VIII.THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT NO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST.

IX. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY AT SENTENCING IT COULD CONSIDER "THE DETAILED CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE."

X. THE LOWER COURT VIOLATED THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND STATE LAW BY INSTRUCTING THE JURY TO DISREGARD SYMPATHY IN REACHING ITS SENTENCING DECISION.

XI. THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND STATE LAW WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE LOWER COURT ALLOWED IN ESSENCE BOTH THE ROBBERY AND PECUNIARY GAIN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE JURY.

XII. THE STATE'S MISCONDUCT IN THE CLOSING ARGUMENTWARRANTS REVERSAL OF THE DEATH SENTENCE.

XIII.THE STATE IMPROPERLY ARGUED STATUTORY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN IT HAD PREVIOUSLY ON THE RECORD ELECTED TO ONLY PROCEED WITH THE PECUNIARY GAIN AGGRAVATOR AND HAD NOT SOUGHT TO PROCEED WITH THE HEINOUS, ATROCIOUS AND CRUEL AGGRAVATOR IN THE SENTENCING INSTRUCTION.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

¶4. On the night of December 12, 1995, Appellant Edwin Hart Turner (hereinafter Turner) and Paul Murrell Stewart (hereinafter Stewart) had been drinking beer and smoking marijuana while driving around Leflore and Carroll Counties in Stewart's automobile. Around midnight the vehicle veered off the gravel road and became stuck in a ditch. Turner and Stewart walked to the nearby home of Doyle Carpenter, a friend of Turner's. Carpenter carried the pair to Turner's home when the trio were unable to free the automobile from the ditch. Once back at Turner's house, Turner and Stewart decided to rob some place. The crimes at issue in the present case occurred at two separate convenience stores approximately four miles apart on U.S. Highway 82 in Carroll County, Mississippi.

¶5. The crime spree began at Mims Turkey Village Truck Stop. Turner and Stewart went into the store wearing masks and carrying high-powered rifles. Turner used a 6mm rifle, while Stewart carried a .243 rifle with a scope attached. Turner and Stewart walked into the store and then Turner shot Eddie Brooks, the store clerk, in the chest. Eddie Brooks slumped behind the counter and fell to the floor.

¶6. Turner and Stewart went behind the counter to the cash register but could not get it to open. The two men became angry when they could not open the cash register. Stewart shot the cash register, but it still would not open. Turner, in a rage, struck the butt of his rifle on the cash register. Turner then shot at the cash register to no avail. Turner then became enraged. Turner placed the barrel of his gun inches from Eddie Brooks' head and pulled the trigger, killing Mr. Brooks.

¶7. Unsuccessful in their attempt to get any money, the two men immediately drove to Mims One Stop. Everett Curry was standing next to a gas pump outside. There were several people inside. Stewart went inside the store to rob it while Turner made Everett Curry get on the ground by threatening him with his 6mm rifle. As Curry was pleading for his life, Turner shot him in the head, killing him. Meanwhile, Stewart was ordering the clerk to fill a paper bag with money.

¶8. After killing Everett Curry, Turner then ran into the store and ordered everyone to get down. Turner then pointed a gun at a man in the store. Stewart urged Turner not to kill anyone else since they already had the money that they came for. Turner and Stewart then left the store and returned to Turner's house.

¶9. Turner and Stewart put the guns inside Turner's house. Stewart left his white hockey mask on the back seat of Turner's car. Stewart then counted the money (about $400.) which they then split, while Turner prepared shrimp and cinnamon rolls which the two then ate. Turner and Stewart awoke later that morning to several law enforcement officers knocking on the door. The officers discovered two high-powered rifles in Turner's house. Turner and Stewart were then arrested and brought to Carroll County Sheriff C. D. Whitfield. Stewart gave a full confession outlining the above events. The Sheriff then got a search warrant for Turner's house.

¶10. Turner was tried and found guilty of two counts of capital murder while in the commission of armed robbery. The jury then imposed the death penalty for both counts of capital murder. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES

I. THE ARREST OF TURNER WAS ILLEGAL PURSUANT TO MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-3-7 AND SUBSEQUENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE VIOLATED THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THEIR MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTIONAL COUNTERPARTS.

A. WARRANTLESS ARREST

¶11. Turner argues forcefully that the information possessed by the law enforcement officers at the time that they went to Turner's home, handcuffed both Turner and Stewart, and drove them away in police cars from the Turner home was insufficient to establish the requisite probable cause needed to arrest Turner without a warrant. Turner argues that the law enforcement officers knew the following:

1. They knew first of all that two persons were dead and that they had met their end by use of a deadly weapon. There was however nothing connected to the dead bodies that signaled Hart Turner's involvement.

2. They recovered from the scenes hulls and casings presumably ejected from the deadly weapons. There was nothing unique about the physical evidence that signaled Hart Turner's involvement.

3. They knew at the first murder scene that no eyewitnesses observed the killing or the perpetrators, nor gave a description of the offender's vehicle. Nothing signaled Hart Turner's involvement.

4. They knew at the second murder scene that no eyewitness could identify the perpetrators as their faces were concealed with masks. No one recognized the masks [as] belong[ing] to Hart Turner and no one got a view of the getaway vehicle license plate which again did not signal Hart Turner's involvement. In fact the best anyone ever came up with was a gray or silver car and Turner owned a dark blue car.

5. They discovered a wallet, purportedly of the victim of the second homicide, yet no fingerprint analysis was done to manifest Hart Turner's involvement.

6. No fingerprint evidence linked Turner to either of the homicides.

7. No one identified Hart Turner's voice as having been behind the mask. The perpetrators did not leave any of their own blood evidence to connect them nor had they left behind any other physical evidence demonstrating they had been there, eg. footprints, tire tracks.

8. No one recognized the rifles used in the killings.

9. At this time, roughly 2:15a.m. they had obviously not had the benefit of Paul Stewart's admissions and confessions, nor any other confidential informant information alerting them to Hart Turner.

10.They knew that the perpetrators were white males and one was taller than the other.

¶12.Conversely, the State argues that the law enforcement officers had a great deal of evidence linking Turner to the two capital murders. In the present case, the officers knew that two murders a few miles apart on Highway 82 had taken place. Two eyewitnesses remembered that two white males of average height, one taller than the other, had perpetrated these crimes. The night manager saw one white male with a gun holding up a patron of his store who was outside pumping gas, and another white male enter the store with a gun wearing a white hockey mask. What the white male standing outside the gas station at the second crime scene was (or was not) wearing is the subject of much contention and debate in the trial record and for that reason will not be assumed by this Court.

¶13. Both sides cite Rome v. State, 348 So. 2d 1026 (Miss. 1977), for support of their position as to this issue. In Rome, the facts were as follows: The Stone County Courthouse was burglarized at night and almost $2000.00 was stolen. Id. at 1027. A policeman on foot patrol in the area heard a noise coming from the courthouse area and spotted two men at which time he made his presence known and ordered them to halt. Id. The two men split up - one was apprehended and the other got away. Id. Officer Griffin was called in for assistance by the arresting officer. Id.

¶14. Officer Griffin, after assisting the arresting officer, went in his patrol car back to the same area of the courthouse and began patrolling it. Id. At this time, Officer Griffin did not know that the courthouse had been burglarized, only that two men had been spotted in the area acting suspiciously and one had run when the police officer ordered them to halt and had gotten away. Id. ¶15. This Court found that,

[T]he record is devoid of any proof that Officer Griffin, at the time he arrested Rome, had any reasonable ground to 'suspect and believe' that Rome had committed the 'felony' as required by Miss. Code Ann. § 99-3-7. []. According to Griffin, he did not know that the courthouse had been burglarized when he took Rome to the police station . . . . Based upon the totality of the circumstances of this case, we cannot hold that Griffin had sufficient evidence to believe that Rome had committed a felony . . . . To uphold the arrest would lay down the unacceptable rule that law officers may arrest any stranger deemed by them to be suspect of having committed an unknown crime, and then hunt a crime to be charged against such a citizen.

Id. at 1028-29.

¶16. While Rome is good law and is very instructive, the facts in the present case do not support a similar finding of reversal as was the decision in Rome. This Court in Rome stated the correct test which we are to apply to arrests without a warrant. Id. at 1027. This Court stated, "[p]robable cause means more than bare suspicion, but does not necessarily require sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction." (quoting Powe v. State, 235 So. 2d 920 (Miss. 1970)).

¶17. Here, two white males in a Toyota with a Georgia plate, tag number FGZ-818, had evaded Leflore County authorities the night before the early morning killings. Leflore County Sheriff Ricky Banks obtained a John Doe arrest warrant for the two white males. High powered rifle hull casings were found at the scene of the crime. Doyle Carpenter told authorities that he gave Turner and another white male a ride to Turner's home when the Toyota with a Georgia plate, tag number FGZ-818 they were riding in, became stuck in the ditch earlier in the evening. Sheriff Whitfield remembered Hart Turner as a white male who had a history of violence.

¶18. The Toyota stuck in the ditch had a Pillow Academy bumper sticker on it which was traced to Stewart, a young white male. There was a trail of footprints leading from the abandoned vehicle to a house up the gravel road that belonged to Doyle Carpenter. Doyle Carpenter described the two men to the law enforcement officers and told them that he had carried them to Turner's residence that night when the three of them could not dislodge the car from the ditch. Sheriff Whitfield asked his deputies to drive to Turner's residence and tell the two men he wanted to talk to them. When Deputy R.W. Miller and Milton Smith arrived at Turner's home, they looked in the window of Turner's Honda Accord. They observed a white hockey mask (consistent with the one described by the witnesses at the second crime scene) lying on the back seat of the car and noticed a live rifle cartridge lying on the car's floorboard.

¶19. The officers knocked on the door at Turner's house. Turner opened the door at which time boxes of rifle shells were visible lying on the floor inside the house. Turner then asked the law enforcement officers inside. Once inside, the officers asked Turner whether anyone else was in the house to which Turner replied that his buddy was in the back bedroom. Turner started back towards that bedroom but was stopped by the law officers who then went back to the bedroom themselves. They found Stewart in the bed and observed two rifles lying on two couches in that bedroom.

¶20. Then both Turner and Stewart were handcuffed, wearing nothing but their underwear. Turner and Stewart were Mirandized according to the arresting officer, and Turner refused to talk. The question is were they under arrest at this time when they were handcuffed and led away to the police patrol cars?

¶21. This Court in Riddles v. State, 471 So. 2d 1234 (Miss. 1985), outlined the test to be used here. If the potential arrestee "could not have believed under such circumstances that he was free to leave," then the arrestee is in fact under arrest. Given the facts of the present case, Turner and Stewart could not reasonably have believed that they were free to leave. Therefore, they were under arrest when they were handcuffed at Turner's house by the law enforcement officers and carried away in police cars.

¶22. The issue then becomes, was this an illegal arrest since the officers had no arrest warrant at this time? Mississippi Code Ann. § 99-3-7(1) (Supp. 1998), regulates when arrests may be made without a warrant:

An officer or private person may arrest any person without warrant, for an indictable offense committed, or a breach of the peace threatened or attempted in his presence; or when a person has committed a felony, though not in his presence; or when a felony has been committed, and he has reasonable ground to suspect and believe the person proposed to be arrested to have committed it; or on a charge, made upon reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the party proposed to be arrested. And in all cases of arrests without warrant, the person making such arrest must inform the accused of the object and cause of the arrest, except when he is in the actual commission of the offense, or is arrested on pursuit. . . . .

(emphasis added).

¶23. According to Stewart's testimony at the trial, the police officers told them that morning that they were under arrest and then sat them down in the living room and began asking them questions after being handcuffed. Stewart testified the police wanted them to sign a piece of paper (presumably a waiver of rights form). Turner and Stewart refused to sign it. Importantly, the record does not reflect that either Turner or Stewart requested to speak with an attorney. The officers told Turner and Stewart at that time that they suspected them of having been involved in the tragic deaths of the two victims in this case, Curry and Brooks.

¶24. The officers in the present case complied with the statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-3-7, in arresting Turner without an arrest warrant. First, a felony had been committed. Two men had been slain in the process of two separate armed robberies. Secondly, a large body of evidence was known at the time of the arrest, including: 1) an abandoned vehicle which fit the description down to the exact license tag number of Stewart's Toyota which had been driven recklessly in Leflore County the night before the early morning killings which had resulted in two John Doe arrest warrants for two young white males; 2) a trail of footprints from that abandoned vehicle which led to Doyle Carpenter's house; 3) Doyle Carpenter having told the officers that he had carried Turner and a friend of Turner's to Turner's house around midnight December 12, 1995; 4) upon the officers arriving at the Turner house, they noticed a white hockey mask lying on the back seat of Turner's vehicle as well as a live rifle round lying on the floorboard in plain view - viewed through the window of the car; 5) upon knocking on the door and Turner opening it, a box of rifle shells were seen in plain view; 6) Turner invited the officers into the house and upon entering the house more shells were visible in plain view lying on the floor; 7) when asked if Turner was alone, Turner replied that his buddy was in the back bedroom, and upon going to the back bedroom to find this person, Stewart was found in the bed and two rifles were seen in plain view lying on two couches in the bedroom.

¶25. All of this evidence, coupled with the knowledge that two murders had occurred in the early morning hours of that same day with a high-powered rifle, perpetrated by two young white males (one wearing a white hockey mask) amounted to "reasonable ground[s] to suspect and believe the person proposed to be arrested to have committed it [the felony] . . . ." Miss. Code Ann. § 99-3-7(1) (Supp. 1998). Therefore, Turner's arrest without a warrant was legal. This result is properly reached even disregarding the much contested evidence concerning whether Turner was wearing a white towel around his neck during the murders in the early morning hours of December 13, 1995, as testified to by some witnesses.

¶26. Furthermore, even had the arrest been found improper (which it has not), that error would have been harmless since no evidence flowed from that arrest which was crucial to the conviction.

B. SEARCH WARRANT

¶27. Having determined that the arrests were legal, the next issue is whether the seizure of the evidence by means of a search warrant later that same day was proper. Turner argues that since the police had no probable cause to arrest him that morning, it follows that any evidence derived as a result of the illegal arrest is tainted. At the time that the officers restrained Turner's and Stewart's movement in the house they were under arrest. Riddles v. State, 471 So. 2d 1234 (Miss. 1985). At that moment, the officers would have been justified in seizing the evidence which was in plain view. However, out of an abundance of caution they did not seize or even touch the items of evidence in the house.

¶28. Turner's argument fails due in large part to the fact that his arrest was legal. Therefore, the evidence discovered as a result of that arrest was not tainted. Furthermore, by the time the affidavit for a search warrant was presented to the magistrate more evidence had been obtained, not the least of which was the confession of Stewart, Turner's partner in crime.

¶29. This Court stated in Fisher v. State, 690 So. 2d 268, 274 (Miss. 1996), that "[a] trial Judge enjoys a great deal of discretion as to the relevancy and admissibility of evidence. Unless the Judge abuses this discretion so as to be prejudicial to the accused, the Court will not reverse this ruling." In Branch v. State, 347 So.2d 957, 958 (Miss. 1977), this Court stated, "the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate some reversible error to this Court. It is the appellant's duty to see that all matters necessary to his appeal, such as exhibits, witnesses' testimony, and so forth, are included in the record, and he may not complain of his own failures in that regard."

¶30. The trial Judge, in regard to Turner's Motion to Suppress Evidence, concluded:

[T]he Sheriff went to the, went and prepared an affidavit and search warrant together with the underlying facts and circumstances. He has testified here today. The Court has examined the underlying facts and circumstances and finds no material contradiction between the facts, underlying facts and circumstances in the affidavit, accompanying the affidavit, or with what Sheriff Whitfield testified to today.

Although the Court finds it's not necessarily material as to whether or not those statements were true, the question is were the facts presented to the Magistrate sufficient for her to have probable cause to issue the warrant. I find the material facts are true though, and I find that the underlying facts and circumstances presented to the Magistrate are more than adequate to give her probable cause to issue the warrant. And therefore, the Motion to Suppress is overruled.

¶31. The trial Judge allowed Turner's counsel ample opportunity to cross-examine the State's witnesses about the events surrounding the discovery of the rifles and the clothing. Turner failed to establish any fault with the law enforcement officers' work. For these reasons, the arrest of Turner was legal pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-3-7 (Supp. 1998), and the subsequent search and seizure pursuant to a search did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and their Mississippi Constitutional counterparts.

II. COUPLING A VAGUE INDICTMENT WHICH DID NOT FAIRLY APPRISE THE DEFENDANT WITH NOTICE OF WHICH UNDERLYING FELONY WOULD BE PURSUED ALONG WITH A DUPLICITOUS JURY INSTRUCTION VIOLATED THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.

¶32. The indictment in the present case is as follows: The Grand Jurors of the State of Mississippi, taken from the body of good and lawful citizens of said [Carroll] County, elected, summoned, empaneled, sworn and charged to inquire in and for the county aforesaid, at the term aforesaid of the Court aforesaid, in the name and by the authority of the State of Mississippi, upon their oath present that

Count I Edwin Hart Turner

late of the First Judicial District of Carroll County, Mississippi, on or about the 13th day of December, 1995, in the county, judicial district, and state aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, while acting in concert with and/or aiding, abetting, or assisting one Paul M. Stewart, did unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously, and either with or without the deliberate design to effect death, kill and murder Eddie Brooks, a human being, by shooting him with a rifle, while engaged in the commission of the felony crime of armed robbery in violation of Miss. Code Ann. Section 97-3-79 and Section 97-3-19(2)(e) (as amended) and constituting a series of related acts or transactions or a common scheme or plan, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi.

Count II Edwin Hart Turner

late of the First Judicial District of Carroll County, Mississippi, on or about the 13th day of December, 1995, in the county, judicial district, and state aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, while acting in concert with and/or aiding, abetting, or assisting one Paul M. Stewart, did unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously, and either with or without the deliberate design to effect death, kill and murder Everett Curry, a human being, by shooting him with a rifle, while engaged in the commission of the felony crime of armed robbery in violation of Miss. Code Ann. Section 97-3-79 and Section 97-3-19(2)(e) (as amended) and constituting a series of related acts or transactions or a common scheme or plan, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi.

ΒΆ33. Turner's argument on this issue centers on the premise that on Count II, he is unaware (based upon the indictment) whether the death of Everett Curry was effected during the armed robbery of Everett Curry or of the gas station where Curry was outside pumping gas. At trial, Turner contends the State introduced evidence of two separate armed robberies: one of Curry and one of the gas station. Turner argues that since the proof at trial went to two separate armed robberies at the scene where Everett Curry was killed, and since the indictment does not apprise Turner of which alleged armed robbery is the basis of the underlying felony, it cannot be said with any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.