Cagler v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01900-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-08-2003 Opinion Author: Bridges, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Simple possession of cocaine - Suppression of evidence - Probable cause - Sections 63-7-55 and 63-7-7 - Illegal search instruction - Amendment of indictment - Statement of potential juror - Judge’s participation in voir dire Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-19-2001 Appealed from: Pearl River County Circuit Court Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT OFFENDER - SENTENCED TO 16 YEARS AND AFTER SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE SERVICE OF 10 YEARS, THE REMAINING 6 WILL BE SUSPENDED. District Attorney: Claiborne McDonald Case Number: K2000-328P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ronald Cagler |
JAMES L. GRAY |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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: | Simple possession of cocaine - Suppression of evidence - Probable cause - Sections 63-7-55 and 63-7-7 - Illegal search instruction - Amendment of indictment - Statement of potential juror - Judge’s participation in voir dire |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ronald Cagler was convicted of simple possession of .5 gram of cocaine. He was sentenced to sixteen years, with six years to be suspended, and ten years to serve. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Suppression of evidence Cagler argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Sections 63-7-55 and 63-7-7 require a vehicle to be in proper working order. Cagler's vehicle was stopped because of excessive smoke emanating from it. This constituted probable cause to stop the vehicle and obtain both the identity of the driver as well as the license status of that driver. Because Cagler was arrested for a suspended license after the stop, the officer involved had every right to search for foreign objects on Cagler. Issue 2: Illegal search instruction Cagler argues that the court erred in denying his jury instruction on an illegal search. The court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without evidentiary foundation. Cagler’s instruction inaccurately charges the jury that it is its function to determine whether or not the search was to find weapons on Cagler or to prevent Cagler from destroying evidence and inaccurately states that the jury must not consider the evidence if it finds that the search was not for either one of those purposes. Therefore, the court did not err. Issue 3: Amendment of indictment Cagler argues that he was not served a copy of the amended indictment, and he did not have time to prepare to argue against amending the indictment. An indictment can be amended when the amendment goes to form and not to substance. The amendment in this case indicting Cagler for a second or subsequent offense goes to form and not to substance. In addition, the State's motion to amend the indictment was filed six months prior to trial, and the court granted defense counsel a generous amount of time to prepare for the hearing concerning the motion for an amended indictment. Issue 4: Statement of potential juror Cagler argues that a person on the venire gave answers to a question that poisoned the entire jury pool. A defendant cannot complain when damaging and inappropriate testimony is given in response to his question. Here, the comments made by the potential juror were apparently honest responses to the question asked by defense counsel and were not such that the entire jury panel was poisoned. Issue 5: Voir dire Cagler argues that numerous acts by the judge during voir dire denied him a fair trial including the judge did not give counsel ample opportunity to determine the identity and background of two jurors who were absent during voir dire; the judge improperly interrupted defense counsel when he asked questions during voir dire about family members and friends who had been charged with drug problems; and the judge interrupted defense counsel's questioning of a juror. Trial courts have the responsibility to control voir dire, but in doing so must take care not to hinder full exploration of juror's predispositions. Cagler has failed to demonstrate that the judge denied him a fair trial. It was reasonable to ask counsel to narrow his question when many of the potential jurors raised their hands in response to the defense’s question. In addition, nothing was said regarding the thoughts of the judge on whether he regarded Cagler as guilty. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
