Carter v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-02058-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-13-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Voir dire - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-17-2002 Appealed from: Tunica County Circuit Court Judge: Larry O. Lewis Disposition: CONVICTION OF SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TWELVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2002-0108 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mardis Carter |
DAVID LYDELL TISDELL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN |
|
|
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 - Voir dire - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mardis Carter was convicted of sale of cocaine and sentenced to twelve years with five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voir dire Carter argues that the court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a new trial based upon the failure of several jurors to respond to a question during voir dire concerning whether they knew him or members of his family. Carter failed to object before the jury was empaneled even though he knew at the time of voir dire that the jurors, about whom he later complained, knew him even though they had not raised their hands. Therefore, he waived his right to complain later. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Carter argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his guilty verdict. Both the narcotics officer and the confidential informant testified that Carter sold the confidential informant a substance alleged to be crack cocaine for fifty dollars. A forensic scientist with the Mississippi Crime Lab testified that the substance was crack cocaine. This evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
