Jackson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-KA-00384-COA
Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00384-SCT ; 2003-KA-00384-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-25-2004
Opinion Author: Thomas, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Sufficiency of evidence - Prosecutorial misconduct - Prior inconsistent statement
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-11-2003
Appealed from: Amite County Circuit Court
Judge: Forrest Johnson
Disposition: SALE OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE: SENTENCED TO A TERM OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FIFTEEN YEARS TO SERVE, FOLLOWED BY FIVE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION.
District Attorney: Ronnie Lee Harper
Case Number: 02-KR-025B-J

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Harry Jackson, Jr.




JAMES H. ARNOLD



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY  

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 controlled substance - Sufficiency of evidence - Prosecutorial misconduct - Prior inconsistent statement

Summary of the Facts: Harry Jackson, Jr. was convicted of sale of a schedule II controlled substance and was sentenced to twenty years, with fifteen to serve and the remaining five years on post-release supervision. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Jackson argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, because at most, the prosecution proved that he was present at the scene of a drug deal. The prosecution provided evidence that Jackson was present and intimately involved with the sale of cocaine to the undercover agent through another person. It need not prove that Jackson handed the cocaine directly to the agent or that he personally profited from the sale in order to be found guilty as a principal. Issue 2: Prosecutorial misconduct Jackson argues that the testimony of a witness called in rebuttal was not exactly as it was characterized to be by the prosecution. However, Jackson has failed to show that the prosecutor acted in bad faith. The prosecutor had reason to ask the witness about his statements because they implicated Jackson and his involvement in the drug sale. Prosecutorial error, if any, was therefore harmless. Issue 3: Prior inconsistent statement Jackson argues that the court erred in failing to give an instruction that the prior inconsistent statement of a witness could not be used as substantive evidence. The judge instructed the jury regarding the credibility of witnesses and that it was its task to weigh the testimony and evidence in the case. An instruction such as this has been held to be sufficient to meet any requirement of an instruction in the instance of an inconsistent statement.


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