Hunt v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01466-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-06-2004 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: COUNT 1 OF POSSESSION AND COUNT 3 OF CONSPIRACY - AFFIRMED; COUNT 2 OF POSSESSION - REVERSED AND RENDERED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of methamphetamine - Double jeopardy - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-18-2002 Appealed from: Oktibbeha County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF POSSESSION AND ONE COUNT OF CONSPIRACY AS HABITUAL OFFENDER - SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF LIFE IN THE MDOC FOR EACH COUNT; EACH TERM TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY; SUCH SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE REDUCED NOR SUSPENDED NOR SHALL SAID DEFENDANT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 2001-0209-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | George Randall Hunt |
MARK G. WILLIAMSON |
||
| 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: | Possession of methamphetamine - Double jeopardy - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | George Hunt was convicted on three counts of drug-related crimes. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Double jeopardy Hunt argues that he was being charged with two distinct crimes for the same underlying conduct, because he was exposed to punishment for the act of possession of the pseudoephedrine yet, because possession of the same pseudoephedrine was an essential element of Count Two, he was subject to a second punishment for the same conduct in violation of double jeopardy. The trial court attempted to resolve the problem by dropping the allegation concerning pseudoephedrine from the jury instruction defining the elements of Count One. By omitting the charge of possession of pseudoephedrine from the instructions defining the elements of Count One under these circumstances, the court effectively amended the indictment to omit an allegation of possession of pseudoephedrine from consideration in Count One because the State needed to borrow that factual allegation to sustain its contentions on another count in the indictment. It would appear that such a modification of an indictment was one of substance rather than form. Considering the indictment in its unamended form, the State has attempted to punish Hunt under two separate criminal statutes for what is but a single criminal act. Once the State elected to indict him on Count One for possession of two or more precursor chemicals in any amount and the list of those chemicals included pseudoephedrine, then Hunt was properly charged and exposed to criminal punishment for his alleged possession of the pseudoephedrine. Any further attempt to punish him separately for a crime that involved no separate or additional criminal activity beyond possession of the same pseudoephedrine mentioned in Count One would be multiplicitous and would necessarily expose Hunt to a second punishment for the exact same offending conduct. It is not appropriate for the State to be able to divide a large quantity of drugs discovered in the possession of a defendant into separate quantities, each meeting the minimum quantity set out in a particular statute, and thereby multiply the number of criminal charges to be brought. Therefore, Hunt’s conviction under Count Two is reversed and rendered. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Hunt argues that all of the materials found in his possession are legally-permissible substances readily available for purchase by the general public and that the proof showed that it would take additional materials beyond those found in his possession to actually manufacture illegal methamphetamine substances. Section 41-29-313 limits the offense to situations where two or more of the suspect items are possessed at the same time or, with regard to over-the-counter cold medicine, where the quantity would appear to be excessive for any legitimate anticipated use of such a product. Because Hunt offered no evidence that would suggest an exculpatory explanation for his possession of these materials, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
