Turner v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-02386-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-27-2007 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Confidential informant - Admission of evidence - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C. J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-05-2004 Appealed from: SIMPSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS ON EACH COUNT, TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: EDDIE H. BOWEN Case Number: 2003-273-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JASON TURNER |
DANIEL CHRISTOPHER JONES |
||
| 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: | Sale of cocaine - Confidential informant - Admission of evidence - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jason Turner was convicted of two counts of selling cocaine. He was sentenced to a term of ten years for each count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Confidential informant Turner argues that the testimony of the confidential informant should have been heard. The informant did not testify because he could not be located by Turner’s defense counsel to be served a subpoena. If the informant is not a material witness to the guilt or innocence of the accused, disclosure is within the discretion of the trial court. However, where the informer is an actual participant in the alleged crime, the accused is entitled to know who he is. When the disclosure of the confidential informant’s identity is warranted, at a minimum, the State must, in good faith, disclose all information in its possession, including that of location. Here, the informant was both a participant and an eyewitness to the drug purchase. Therefore, the disclosure of his identity was required. The State complied with this requirement and provided Turner with the informant’s identity. Turner did not present any evidence that the State deliberately withheld information about the informant’s whereabouts and thereby acted in bad faith. Nor did Turner move for a continuance in order to obtain more information on the informant’s whereabouts. Therefore, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Admission of evidence Turner argues that the court erred in admitting the two cocaine bags into evidence. In order for the State to prove that what was sold to the officer was a controlled substance, it was proper for the bags of that substance to be submitted into evidence. It was then the province of the jury to decide, as a question of fact, whether the substance came from Turner. Turner also argues that the court erred in admitting transcripts of audiotapes. Transcripts of audiotapes, as a guide to a tape recording, may be introduced into evidence as a device to help the jurors understand other types of real evidence. Although Turner disagreed with the accuracy of the tapes, he did not offer into evidence his own version of the tapes for the jury to evaluate. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Turner argues that this is a case of mistaken identity and that the weight and sufficiency of the evidence presented to the jury were inadequate to convict him. An officer identified Turner twice as the man who sold him the drugs on the two separate occasions. The State elicited detailed testimony of the purchases from the two officers working the undercover sting operation. Audiotapes and their transcriptions were introduced by the State of the two sales. If viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to warrant the trial court’s denial of Turner’s motion for a directed verdict and JNOV. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
