Archie v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-00514-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-06-2003
Opinion Author: Myers, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of cocaine - Presence of alternate juror during deliberations - Section 13-5-67
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: 03-01-2002
Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court
Judge: Samac Richardson
Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF COCAINE AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER. SENTENCED TO SIXTEEN YEARS' IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE OR EARLY RELEASE
District Attorney: Rick Mitchell
Case Number: 2001-473

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Wesley Archie




ROSS R. BARNETT



 

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 cocaine - Presence of alternate juror during deliberations - Section 13-5-67

Summary of the Facts: Wesley Archie was convicted of possession of cocaine, as a habitual offender and sentenced to sixteen years without the possibility of parole, suspension, or early release. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Archie argues that the court erred in finding that the verdict was not tainted when the alternate juror disobeyed the judge and went into the deliberation room. Section 13-5-67 provides that an alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged at the time the jury retires to consider its verdict. Alternate jurors may not be present, nor may they participate in any discussions with the other jurors if they are not replacing one of those jurors for the remainder of the deliberations, although harmless error will result from such a mistake by the judge if the appellant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the alternate juror's presence during deliberations. Here, it is apparent that there may have been a contaminated verdict and Archie was prejudiced by the presence of the alternate juror. Therefore, he is entitled to a new trial.


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