Bates v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00983-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-20-2007 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine - Constructive possession jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-19-2004 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF MORE THAN .1 GRAM BUT LESS THAN 2 GRAMS OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO EIGHT YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND FINE OF $50,000. District Attorney: DAVID BYRD CLARK Case Number: 2003-0301 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MARCUS BATES |
WALTER E. WOOD |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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 - Constructive possession jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Marcus Bates was convicted of possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to eight years as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instruction Bates argues that a jury instruction gave an incomplete legal standard for constructive possession, because the instruction fails to mention that proximity to the drug by itself is not enough to convict a defendant unless incriminating circumstances are also proven. Bates is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal because he did not object on those grounds. In addition, the instructions clearly state all of the elements required. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Bates argues that the State relied on circumstantial evidence to prove its case and that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty. Testimony is undisputed that Bates was the driver of the vehicle. The agent witnessed Bates furiously chewing and swallowing. After he asked Bates to open his mouth, the agent saw white residue consistent with the appearance of crack cocaine. As crack cocaine is chewed, the agent stated that the powder turns to a toothpaste-like substance, which is consistent with what he witnessed. A rock of cocaine was later found directly underneath Bates’ leg on the floorboard. The agent testified that Bates admitted to being the owner of the vehicle, but that legal title had not yet passed. The defense offered no evidence to rebut this testimony. This testimony provided enough evidence for a jury to determine that Bates had constructive possession of the cocaine. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
