Gordy SANDERS
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Crawley & Ford, Michael H. Steele, Kosciusko, for appellant.
A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before SMITH, P.J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.
*823 BOWLING, Justice, for the Court:
Appellant appeals from his conviction in the Circuit Cоurt of Leake County on a charge of armed robbery. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
There are four аssignments of error, all of which require a reversal. These errors are emphasized by the fact that appellаnt was convicted on the testimony of two admitted crooks. Appellant was a 66-year-old black man, having served at one time as deputy sheriff of Attala County. Each of the said two principal witnesses, as hereinbefore stated, hаd quite a criminal record in Attala County. The essence of appellant's defense was that he was "framed" by thesе witnesses.
During the early evening of March 16, 1976, one Floyd Harris, a 65-year-old black man living in Leake County near the community of Cоnway, was called to his front door. He was met with a 38-caliber pistol held by one of the witnesses, Marion F. (Jack) Gowan. Aрpellant was never seen by Harris. Gowan forced Harris to give him money that was hidden in Harris' home. Gowan was identified by Harris and subsequently arrested. On information supplied by Gowan appellant was arrested several days later.
*824 Gowan's testimony was that he and appellant went to Harris' home in appellant's pickup driven by appellant; that he went into Harris' home and committed the robbery while appellant waited in the pickup.
On cross-examination attorney fоr appellant attempted to question Gowan regarding an alleged incident when appellant, while deputy shеriff, attempted to arrest Gowan at a hospital in Kosciusko, at which time marijuana was found in Gowan's shoe. The lowеr court sustained the State's objection to this evidence. Appellant's attorney argued then, and argues here, thаt this evidence was material on the question of the alleged motive of Gowan in testifying against appellant. We agree. It is clear that the credibility of a witness may be impeached on cross-examination by showing bias, prejudice, motive or hostility. Tate v. State,
On cross-examination of Gowan, appellаnt's attorney attempted to question Gowan on convictions of misdemeanors in addition to his felony convictions. Thе lower court sustained the district attorney's objection to misdemeanor convictions. This was error. Mississippi Code Annоtated section 13-1-11 (1972) provides as follows:
A conviction of a person for any offense, except perjury оr subornation of perjury, shall not disqualify such person as a witness, but such conviction may be given in evidence to impeаch his credibility ...
In McElroy, Mississippi Evidence, section 130, pages 404-405 (1955), we find the following:
To impeach the credibility of a witness he may be asked (1) if he has ever been convicted of a crime, and if his answer is in the affirmative, he may be further asked, (2) whаt was the crime or misdemeanor, but never is he permitted to be asked any other questions about [the details of] the оffense, ... .
In Baker v. State,
It has long been the law in this state that a witness may be cross-examined touching his conviction of a crime which mаy extend to misdemeanors as well as infamous crimes.
There is an exception to the above stated principle as set out in Mississippi Code Annotated section 63-9-15 (1972) regarding traffic violations.
On direct examination by the district attornеy of witness Stanley Howell, it was brought out that he had served several terms in the Mississippi State Penitentiary and had several felony convictions. On cross-examination attorney for appellant attempted to elicit from Howell the felonies of which he had been convicted. The lower court sustained the State's objection to this attempt and rulеd that he could only be required to state how many times he had been convicted. This was error under the authorities citеd in discussing the previous assignment.
Defendant presented testimony from witness Claude Guess, who was a Kosciusko city policeman for twenty-five years and also served as sheriff of Attala County for four years, from 1972 through 1975. The lower court, on examinаtion by appellant's attorney, refused to permit Mr. Guess to testify as to the reputation of the witness Howell for truth and veracity. The objection to this testimony was based on the fact that Guess had not actually been in contact with Howеll for approximately eleven months, and that his knowledge of Howell's truth was "too remote." Mr. Guess testified he had known Howell during "the 50's, and the 60's, and through 1975." The trial was held on November 11-12, 1976. During the time Howell lived *825 in Attala County Mr. Guess had considerable experience with Howell, both in his position as policeman and as sheriff. We realize that the lower court has a certain amount of discretion in questions such as this. We find, however, that this discretion was abused in the present case, particularly because of the situation regarding the two principal witnesses as hereinbefore discussed. See Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Tripp,
In the Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Tripp case, the Court permittеd similar testimony as that attempted to be elicited here when the witness had not lived in the community for three years. In Norwood & Butterfield Co. v. Andrews,
During the trial of the case the State was permitted to inject into the testimony before the jury an implication thаt appellant had sold whiskey in the past. On a retrial of the case this should not be permitted.
Due to the foregoing errors the case is reversed and remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PATTERSON, C.J., INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur.