Grim v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CT-01920-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-KP-01920-COA ; 2008-KP-01920-COA ; 2008-CT-01920-SCT ; 2008-CT-01920-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-18-2012 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Counsel on appeal - M.R.A.P. 6(c)(2) - Right to confrontation - Forensic report - Cross-examination of analyst Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Randolph, Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, J. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J. Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, P.J., and Chandler, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Granted |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-14-2008 Appealed from: Tunica County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of the sale of cocaine and sentenced to life as a habitual offender. District Attorney: Brenda Fay Mitchell Case Number: 2008-0120 |
|
| Note: | The judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court of Tunica County are Affirmed. Motion for Order Directing that a Copy of Supplemental Brief for Appellee be Served on Appellant Pro Se filed by the Appellant, Frederick Denell Grim, pro se, is dismissed as moot. The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO63169.pdf . | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Frederick Denell Grim |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER |
|
|
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 - Counsel on appeal - M.R.A.P. 6(c)(2) - Right to confrontation - Forensic report - Cross-examination of analyst |
| Summary of the Facts: | Frederick Grim was convicted for the sale of cocaine. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Counsel on appeal Grim filed a motion to dismiss appellate counsel and to represent himself. A criminal defendant has a state constitutional right to self-representation on appeal. The appellate court must ensure that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily makes a waiver. M.R.A.P. 6(c)(2) sets forth the procedures for allowing an indigent criminal appellant to dismiss appointed counsel and proceed pro se on appeal. In this case, the trial court thoroughly questioned Grim about his desire to proceed pro se and informed Grim of his constitutional rights. Grim indicated that wished to act as his own attorney. Thus, Grim’s Motion to Dismiss Counsel is granted. Issue 2: Right to confrontation Grim argues that his right to confrontation was violated because he was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the analyst who authored the forensic report admitted as evidence against him. In Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676 (Miss. 2012), the Court said that there are instances in which “someone other than the primary analyst who conducted the test can testify regarding the results.” To determine if a witness satisfies the defendant’s right to confrontation, the court considers whether the witness has intimate knowledge of the report even if the witness did not perform the analysis firsthand and whether the witness was actively involved in the production of the report. In this case, the testifying witness was the laboratory supervisor. While he was not involved in the actual testing, he had reviewed the report for accuracy and signed the report as the “case technical reviewer.” He was able to explain the types of tests that were performed and the analysis that was conducted. Based on his review of the data, he had reached his own conclusion that the substance tested was cocaine. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing him to testify. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
