Pulliam v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-01446-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01446-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-17-2004
Opinion Author: Myers, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Sufficiency of evidence - Jury instructions - Comments on videotape - Prior crimes’ evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-18-2002
Appealed from: Union County Circuit Court
Judge: Andrew K. Howorth
Disposition: SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF 20 YEARS WITH 8 YEARS SUSPENDED.
District Attorney: James M. Hood, III
Case Number: UK-2001-214

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Pinkie Pulliam




STEPHEN P. LIVINGSTON



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY  

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 - Jury instructions - Comments on videotape - Prior crimes’ evidence

Summary of the Facts: Pinkie Pulliam was convicted for the sale of a controlled substance and was sentenced to twenty years with eight years suspended. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Pulliam argues that the evidence was insufficient because he was never identified by anyone other than the confidential informant. At trial, the confidential informant unequivocally testified that Pulliam sold him the cocaine, and the officer testified that he recognized the voice on the tape as being Pulliam’s. The State’s expert testified that the two rocks that Pulliam placed on the table were cocaine. Any determination as to the credibility of these witnesses was for the jury to decide. Issue 2: Jury instructions Pulliam argues that the court erred in refusing his jury instructions which dealt with the State’s burden of proof. While a defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without evidentiary foundation. Here, the instructions were cumulative to other instructions and were properly refused. Issue 3: Videotape Pulliam argues that the court erred in allowing the confidential information to comment on the videotape because it invaded the province of the jury. If the witness’s testimony is confined to matters actually perceived firsthand, there can be no improper prejudice to the defendant in permitting the witness to relate those observations to the jury during its viewing of the tape. In this case, Williams’s testimony was confined to matters perceived firsthand. Issue 4: Prior crimes Pulliam argues that the court erred in allowing evidence of other crimes at trial. When a defendant opens the door by testifying that he has not sold drugs, it is permissible for the State to impeach him by inquiring into past drug sales which go towards the veracity of the defendant’s testimony. Here, Pulliam testified on direct examination that he had not sold drugs, that he was not a drug dealer, and that he was only guilty of being a drug addict. Therefore, the court did not err in allowing the evidence to be admitted only for evaluating Pulliam’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.


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