Burchfield v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-00261-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00261-SCT ; 2002-CT-00261-SCT ; 2002-KA-00261-COA
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-08-2004
Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed
Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of precursor drugs - Illegal search - Expert analysis - Labels on bottles - M.R.E. 803(24) - M.R.E. 901 - Expert testimony - Closing argument - Cruel and unusual punishment
Judge(s) Concurring: Thomas, Lee, Myers, and Griffis, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J.
Dissenting Author : Irving, J.
Dissent Joined By : King, C.J. and Bridges, P.J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-15-2002
Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court
Judge: George B. Ready
Disposition: POSSESSION OF OVER 250 DOSAGE UNITS OF EPHEDRINE OR PSEUDOEPHEDRINE: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC.
District Attorney: John W. Champion
Case Number: 2001-348-RD
Note: On motion for rehearing
  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Christopher Burchfield




 JACK R. JONES III



  
Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE  
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: Possession of precursor drugs - Illegal search - Expert analysis - Labels on bottles - M.R.E. 803(24) - M.R.E. 901 - Expert testimony - Closing argument - Cruel and unusual punishment
Summary of the Facts: The motion for rehearing is granted, and these opinions are substituted for the original opinions. Christopher Burchfield was convicted of possession of precursor drugs with knowledge that the drugs would be used to manufacture a controlled substance. He appeals.
Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Illegal search The court denied Burchfield's motion to suppress the 864 unit dosages of ephedrine that were seized from the Cadillac, and Burchfield argues that there was no probable cause for anyone to stop his car and later to search it. If an officer has a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person he encounters was involved in or is wanted in connection with a felony, an investigative stop of a suspect may be made. Here, the officer heard the dispatcher describe the Cadillac. Such notice and specific enough description of a vehicle will permit an investigatory stop. During the valid stop, the officer saw a Walgreens shopping bag on the back seat which contained ephedrine, and the driver consented to a search of his car. Issue 2: Expert analysis Burchfield argues that some expert analysis was needed to establish the ingredients of the cold medicine. Burchfield objected to the admission of the pills and to the reading to the jury of the label on the pill bottles. Only an objection based on the confrontation clause will compel that hearsay evidence be admitted through a firmly rooted exception. That objection must be made contemporaneously at trial in order to preserve the argument for appeal. Because the conversation in chambers concerning the objection was not recorded, it would only be speculation that this objection was based on the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. If there is an exception that clearly would have permitted the admission of this evidence in a civil case, the Sixth Amendment is not a factor in this particular criminal case. M.R.E. 803(24) provides that if evidence has equivalent reliability to other kinds of hearsay that are admissible, then that evidence also is admissible under certain guidelines. Labels on pill bottles made in the normal process of nationwide manufacturing and distribution by an established pharmaceutical company, have substantial indicia of trustworthiness. Rule 803(24)'s procedural requirement to give notice to the opposing party that such evidence will be offered was met. Even with an applicable exception to hearsay, the label must be properly authenticated under Rule 901. A common sense reading of the authentication requirements is that labels on products of established manufacturers who are engaging in nationwide distribution and are subject to federal regulation, are self-authenticating. Therefore, the evidence was properly admitted. Issue 3: Expert testimony Burchfield argues that the admission of testimony of a witness as an expert in crystal methamphetamine was prejudicial since he was not on trial for possessing or manufacturing crystal methamphetamine. Evidence must be relevant for the court to admit expert opinion testimony. Here, the testimony revealed that ephedrine extracted from over the counter cold medications is used as a key ingredient to make crystal methamphetamine. Since Burchfield bought 864 unit dosages of ephedrine and since Burchfield stated that he and the driver of the Cadillac intended to resell the ephedrine, it could be inferred that this ephedrine was going to be used to produce crystal methamphetamine. Issue 4: Closing argument Burchfield argues that the State’s inference in closing argument that Burchfield knew that the pills taken from the Cadillac were going to be used to produce crystal methamphetamine was not supported by the evidence since there was never any evidence presented at trial proving his intent to manufacture crystal methamphetamine. Prosecutor can argue facts only if they are in the evidence or can be inferred. Here, there was a reasonable inference that Burchfield knew that the purpose of purchasing the ephedrine was to manufacture crystal methamphetamine. Issue 5: Cruel and unusual punishment Burchfield argues that the sentence he was given is cruel and unusual punishment, because he had never been convicted of a felony and was only twenty-three years old. There is no abuse of discretion when the sentence imposed is within the statutory limits.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court