Halderman v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00985-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CT-00985-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-16-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine - Motion to suppress - Standing - Motion in limine Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-15-2005 Appealed from: Attala County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF PRECURSOR CHEMICALS WITH THE INTENT TO MANUFACTURE METHAMPHETAMINE, WITH A SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT FOR POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. Case Number: 05-0061(A)-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JOHNNY HALDERMAN |
ROSALIND HAYDEN JORDAN |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JACOB RAY |
|
|
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 precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine - Motion to suppress - Standing - Motion in limine |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnny Halderman was convicted of possession of precursor chemicals with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. He was sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion to suppress Halderman was arrested at his girlfriend’s trailer. He argues that he had no possessory interest in the trailer; therefore, his consent to search the trailer was not valid. He also argues that his presence in the trailer as a guest gave him an expectation of privacy. The trial court correctly determined that Halderman had no standing to challenge the warrantless search. Halderman testified that he recently had moved and did not live in the trailer. He also testified that he received his mail at a different address. Because Halderman disavowed any possessory interest in the property, he has no standing to challenge the search. Even if Halderman did have standing to challenge the search, he waived his right to do so when he signed the consent to search form. Issue 2: Motion in limine Halderman filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude photographs, items and testimony regarding methamphetamine and methamphetamine residue found in certain items seized from the house. Halderman argues that the evidence was character evidence and highly prejudicial, as it related to possession and manufacture of methamphetamine, neither of which was charged in the indictment. The reviewing court may reverse a case only if the admission or exclusion of evidence results in prejudice and harm or adversely affects a substantial right of a party. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony and evidence. Nothing in the record indicates that the admission of that particular evidence prejudiced Halderman’s defense or substantially affected his rights. The court was within its discretion to admit the photographic evidence and testimony for the purposes of establishing intent. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
