Stubbs v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00399-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00399-SCT ; 2002-KA-00399-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-13-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Admission of evidence - Availability of informant - Prosecutorial misconduct - Closing argument - Weight 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: 07-02-1999 Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge: Keith Starrett Disposition: SALE OF COCAINE - SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF NINETEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC. TO SERVE THE FIRST FOURTEEN YEARS WITH THE LAST FIVE YEARS TO BE SERVED ON POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION. DEFENDANT FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY COURT COST, $5,000 FINE, $120 RESTITUTION TO SMINEU, AND $500 ATTORNEY FEES. District Attorney: J. Daniel Smith Case Number: 99-185-KS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Donyale Stubbs a/k/a Donyale Holloway a/k/a "Bean" |
JOHN R. REEVES |
||
| 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 - Admission of evidence - Availability of informant - Prosecutorial misconduct - Closing argument - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Donyalle Stubbs was convicted of the sale of cocaine and was sentenced to nineteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of evidence Stubbs argues that the court erroneously allowed testimony of a narcotics agent that an informant told him that drugs could be purchased from Stubbs. Governmental officers cannot divulge the information elicited from informants if those same informants are not available for cross-examination by the defendant. Here, the informant was available for cross-examination by Stubbs. In addition, the statement was not introduced for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted but to explain how Stubbs came under investigation. Stubbs also argues that the testimony of the agent regarding the motion sensor and guns which he found in Stubbs’s home was irrelevant. The judge properly performed a Rule 403 balancing test and he found that the testimony was more probative than prejudicial. Issue 2: Prosecutorial misconduct Stubbs argues that the State violated his right to a fair and impartial trial by remarks it made in its closing argument, because the comments led the jury to believe that, since the State called three witnesses and he none, then he must have done what the State said he did. While prosecutors are prohibited from making direct comments on the defendant's failure to testify, a broad latitude is allowed to attorneys in their arguments. Here, the State’s remarks regarding the jury’s duty to weigh the testimony of the agent and the informant did not violate Stubbs’s right to not testify but was a reasonable argument. Stubbs also argues that the State wrongly appealed to the fear and prejudices of the jury by implying that the informant would be harmed unless the jury convicted Stubbs. Appealing to the fears of jurors is impermissible. Here, the prosecutor's comment was not an appeal to the fears of the jury but merely an argument to buttress the credibility of the informant to the jury. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Stubbs argues that the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In addition to the informant’s testimony, the agent attested that he was familiar with Stubbs’s voice and heard the sale transaction over the informant’s body transmitter. Reasonable persons could find Stubbs guilty on the evidence presented. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
