Kincaid v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01652-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-21-2003 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Right of confrontation - Discovery violation - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-14-2001 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: COUNT 1- SALE OF LESS THAN ONE OUNCE OF MARIJUANA - ENTENCED TO THREE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND TO PAY A FINE OF $1,500. COUNT 2 - SALE OF LESS THAN ONE OUNCE OF MARIJUANA - SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH SENTENCE IN COUNT 1. District Attorney: Ken Turner Case Number: 01-CR-059-LE |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jerry Kincaid |
MICHAEL E. ROBINSON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY JR. |
|
|
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 controlled substance - Right of confrontation - Discovery violation - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jerry Kincaid was convicted of the sale of a controlled substance and was sentenced to two consecutive three year terms. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Confrontation Clause Kincaid argues that the court erred in not requiring the State to disclose the names of the confidential informants. The State argues that the defense was given a disclosure which by its own admission it failed to investigate. If failing to reveal the identity of an informant is considered to be a discovery violation, the proper remedy is to seek a continuance or waive the issue. Not only does Kincaid fail to make any claim that the names of the informants would have provided any value to his defense, but the defense did not avail itself of the opportunity to interview the informants when they were present in the courthouse. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Kincaid challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence in support of his conviction. The evidence in support of the verdict included testimony from law enforcement personnel who purchased bags of a substance from Kincaid and test results of the substance which confirmed that it was marijuana. This evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find Kincaid guilty of the sale of marijuana. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
