Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

244 So. 2d 414

Docket No. 46158.

Perkins v. State

John M. PERKINS v. STATE of Mississippi.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1971.

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1971-02-15

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It is clear that the sheriff and his deputies did not consciously attempt to influence the jurors in deciding the case, but that does not determine the question here involved. We are of the opinion that a material witness should not serve as jury bailiff, and if such witness serves as jury bailiff after objection thereto by appellant, it is reversible error. It is a common trait of human nature for witnesses to favor the side of the case on which they testify, and many witnesses become partisans for what they regard as their side of the case. Probably one reason for this is that the witness wants the jury to vindicate his version of the facts. A material witness is partisan, or likely to be; and there are many ways a jury could be influenced without the witness actually discussing the case. Moreover [sic], there is opportunity for actual and intended improper influence which can, and should, be avoided. Of equal or greater importance in this regard is the appearance of unfairness, and this is of vital importance; for public confidence in the fairness of jury trials is essential to the existence of our legal system. Whatever tends to threaten public confidence in the fairness of jury trials, tends to threaten one of our sacred legal institutions. There is no reason why a material witness should serve as jury bailiff and the use of the State witnesses as such was reversible error, where timely objection was made thereto, as was done in this case. ( 226 Miss. at 285-86 , 83 So.2”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 264 So. 2d 823 - Dunn v. State

“was observed conversing with a juror shortly after he had testified as a witness for the State.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 468 So. 2d 87 - Great American Surplus Lines Ins. v. Dawson

Relies on Lee v. State · Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2019

8 state decisions

3019711980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Constance Iona Slaughter, George Peach Taylor, Jackson, for appellant.

¶2A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Velia Ann Mayer, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM:

¶4John M. Perkins was convicted in the Circuit Court of Simpson County of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor, by inducing and persuading an eleven-year-old child to enter and remain in the Simpson County jail contrary to the instructions of the jailer. Miss.Code 1942 Ann. §§ 7185-13 and 7185-02(g) (Supp. 1968). He was fined $400 and sentenced to four months in jail. We reverse.

¶5The defendant, prior to the introduction of evidence by the State, moved the court to direct the police officers who were to be witnesses in the cause to remove themselves from close proximity to the jury *415 box. This request was denied. During the trial in chief Jimmy Griffith, a deputy sheriff and jailer, was observed conversing with a juror shortly after he had testified as a witness for the State. A motion for a mistrial was immediately filed by the defendant. This motion was overruled after the court determined that the conversation was unrelated to the trial.

¶6In Lee v. State, 226 Miss. 276, 285-286, 83 So.2d 818, 821 (1955), we stated:

It is clear that the sheriff and his deputies did not consciously attempt to influence the jurors in deciding the case, but that does not determine the question here involved. We are of the opinion that a material witness should not serve as jury bailiff, and if such witness serves as jury bailiff after objection thereto by appellant, it is reversible error.
It is a common trait of human nature for witnesses to favor the side of the case on which they testify, and many witnesses become partisans for what they regard as their side of the case. Probably one reason for this is that the witness wants the jury to vindicate his version of the facts. A material witness is partisan, or likely to be; and there are many ways a jury could be influenced without the witness actually discussing the case. Moreover, there is opportunity for actual and intended improper influence which can, and should, be avoided.
Of equal or greater importance in this regard is the appearance of unfairness, and this is of vital importance; for public confidence in the fairness of jury trials is essential to the existence of our legal system. Whatever tends to threaten public confidence in the fairness of jury trials, tends to threaten one of our sacred legal institutions. There is no reason why a material witness should serve as jury bailiff and the use of the State witnesses as such was reversible error, where timely objection was made thereto, as was done in this case.

¶7See also Smith v. State, 251 Miss. 241, 169 So.2d 451 (1964), and the cases therein cited.

¶8We are of the opinion that the court erred in not granting a mistrial since Griffith was a material witness for the State as well as a "courtroom deputy" and of necessity in close contact with the jury. Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that the above-cited authorities are controlling which necessitate a reversal of the case.

¶9We have examined the other assignments of error and consider them to be without merit.

¶10Reversed and remanded.

¶11ETHRIDGE, C.J., and RODGERS, BRADY, PATTERSON, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.

/244/so2d/414 · .json · Public domain