Clair v. State
Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00679-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-13-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manufacture of controlled substance & Possession of controlled substance - Suppression of evidence - Consent to search - Jury deliberation - Pre-filing of jury instruction - URCCC 3.07 Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-12-2002 Appealed from: Chickasaw County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: COUNT I - MANUFACTURE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (METHAMPHETAMINE) - 30 YEARS WITH 15 SUSPENDED; COUNT II - POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (METHAMPHETAMINE) - 8 YEARS. THE SENTENCES ARE TO RUN CONCURRENTLY. District Attorney: James M. Hood, III Case Number: HK-01-47 |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Randy Glenn Clair |
EDWARD D. LANCASTER |
||
Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
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: | Manufacture of controlled substance & Possession of controlled substance - Suppression of evidence - Consent to search - Jury deliberation - Pre-filing of jury instruction - URCCC 3.07 |
Summary of the Facts: | Randy Clair was convicted of one count of manufacture of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and one count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. He was sentenced to thirty years with fifteen years suspended for the manufacture count and eight years for the possession count, with the sentences to run concurrently. He appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Suppression of evidence Clair argues that the court should have granted his motion to suppress all evidence found during the search of his residence and surrounding area, because he did not voluntarily consent to the search of his residence. While the subject's knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into account, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent. Consent may be established without showing that the police warned the consenting party of his Fourth Amendment rights or that he was otherwise aware of those rights. Here, there was ample testimony from law enforcement officers to show Clair consented to the search, and there was no evidence of any threats or coercion by the officers in obtaining Clair's consent to search. Issue 2: Jury deliberation Clair argues that a copy of the complete indictment should have been allowed into the jury deliberation and that there is no supporting law for the judge to allow part of the indictment concerning a possible sentence to be redacted. The judge offered to let the indictment into the jury room with the statement concerning sentencing to be omitted, but the appellant only wanted the complete indictment. There is no prejudice resulting from the failure of the jury to have a copy of the indictment in the deliberation room. Issue 3: Pre-filing of jury instruction Clair argues that Rule 3.07 of the Mississippi Rules of Uniform Circuit and County Court practice was violated because a jury instruction was not given to the defense over twenty four hours in advance. Absent prejudice to the defendant, the court's failure to require the State to pre-file its jury instructions is harmless error. Clair fails to offer any proof of prejudice. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court