Quinn v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01677-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-24-2012 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Defective indictment - Cross-examination - M.R.E. 611(b) - M.R.E. 103(a) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-10-2010 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: CONVICTED OF THREE COUNTS OF THE SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN COUNT I, TWENTY YEARS IN COUNT II, AND TEN YEARS IN COUNT III, WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, WITH THE SENTENCES IN ALL COUNTS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO ONE ANOTHER, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 10-CR-056-LE-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ramon Korbel Quinn a/k/a Ramon K. Quinn |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS JR.
JAMES EDWIN SMITH III |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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 - Defective indictment - Cross-examination - M.R.E. 611(b) - M.R.E. 103(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ramon Quinn was convicted of three counts of selling crack cocaine. Quinn was sentenced to twenty years on Count I; twenty years on Count II; and ten years on Count III, with five years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Indictment Quinn challenges whether the evidence presented at trial conformed to charges in his indictment. Quinn argues that his indictment charged him with selling cocaine to “[MBN] Confidential Informant #95-110,” but the proof produced at trial only showed Quinn made three sales of cocaine to Larry Gardner. He argues that the State failed to prove that Gardner was MBN Confidential Informant #95-110. The defect in this case is one of form and not substance, and Quinn is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal since he failed to present the issue to the circuit court for review first. The specific, correct name of the individual to whom the drugs were sold is not an essential element of the crime Quinn was charged with committing and did not affect any possible defense he may have had to the charges of selling cocaine. Under URCCC 7.09, it is likely that if Quinn had objected to the indictment at trial, the State would have been permitted to amend the indictment to reflect Gardner to be the MBN Confidential Informant #95-110. Issue 2: Cross-examination Quinn argues the circuit court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to his cross-examination of Gardner about the relationship between Gardner and Quinn’s mother. Quinn submits that Gardner only approached law-enforcement officials to act as a confidential informant after his relationship with Quinn’s mother had ended. According to M.R.E. 611(b), the scope of cross-examination shall not be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The evidence presented shows that Quinn was just one of several individuals that Gardner bought drugs from as a confidential informant. Gardner testified that he had been working as a confidential informant for law enforcement for approximately ten to fifteen years and had participated in that capacity approximately twenty-five times prior to the current case. M.R.E. 103(a) states that error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected. The record does not show that a substantial right of Quinn was affected by the exclusion of Gardner’s testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
