Burton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-01764-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-22-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Dismissal of juror - Right to confront witnesses - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(1) - Peremptory challenges Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-08-2003 Appealed from: Panola County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE: SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH SEVEN YEARS TO SERVE AND THREE YEARS POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION. District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CR2002-77-BP1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Brandon Burton a/k/a Rye |
DAVID L. WALKER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Sale of cocaine - Dismissal of juror - Right to confront witnesses - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(1) - Peremptory challenges |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brandon Burton was convicted for selling cocaine and was sentenced to ten years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Dismissal of juror Burton argues that the court erred in refusing to replace a juror with an alternate juror when it was discovered that she knew the State's key witness. A juror will be dismissed if he failed to truthfully answer or disclose information during voir dire, unless it is shown that he or she did not have substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited. Here, the juror truthfully answered the questions presented and disclosed information during voir dire. It was not until she actually saw the witness in the courtroom that she realized that she knew her. Therefore, at the time of voir dire, the juror did not have substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited, and she was not required to be dismissed. Issue 2: Right to confront witnesses Burton argues that his right to confront witnesses was violated when the court overruled his motion in limine to exclude the audio portion of the videotape of the drug transaction. While the United States and Mississippi constitutions guarantee a defendant the right to confront a witness, Burton’s rights were not violated since neither Burton nor the trial court could dictate to the prosecution what witnesses they must call to testify or how to present their case. In addition, Burton could have compelled the testimony of this witness if he believed him to be a necessary witness. Burton also argues that the statement constituted inadmissible hearsay. Even if the statement met the definition of hearsay, the statement would properly be considered an exception to the hearsay rule as a present sense impression under M.R.E. 803(1). Issue 3: Peremptory challenges Burton argues that peremptory challenges should be abolished, because an attorney can easily assert a facially racial or gender-neutral reason for striking a potential juror, when in fact, his real reason is not neutral. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Mississippi Supreme Court have yet to eliminate the practice of peremptory challenges. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
