Towner v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01164-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-04-2003 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Peremptory challenges - Statement by co-conspirator - M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E) - Limitation of cross-examination - Rebuttal testimony - Proportionality of sentence - 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: 06-21-2001 Appealed from: Scott Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: SALE OF COCAINE-30 YEARS IN MDOC District Attorney: Ken Turner Case Number: 2001-CR-0024-SC |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie Charles Towner |
LAUREL G. WEIR |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN |
|
|
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 - Peremptory challenges - Statement by co-conspirator - M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E) - Limitation of cross-examination - Rebuttal testimony - Proportionality of sentence - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Towner was found guilty of the sale of cocaine and sentenced to thirty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Peremptory challenges Towner argues that the court made erroneous determinations that the State's challenges were race-neutral. To make a prima facie showing of discrimination, the defendant must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group; that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to excuse a venire person of the defendant's race; and that there is an inference that the venire persons were excluded on account of their race. The other party must supply reasons that are racially neutral. The State's use of peremptory strikes against potential jurors who have family members who have been convicted of crimes is acceptable as a race-neutral reason and therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the explanations tendered by the State. Issue 2: Hearsay Towner argues that the court erred in allowing agents to testify about what they heard Towner and another person say during the drug transaction. A statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible under M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E). Therefore, the testimony was admissible under this rule. Issue 3: Limitation of cross-examination Towner argues that the court erred in limiting his cross-examination of the agent and his re-direct of another witness. The admission or exclusion of evidence must result in prejudice or harm before it will be reversed. In addition, the court has broad discretion when ruling on matters brought forth on re-direct. The court’s rulings on these matters were correct. Issue 4: Rebuttal testimony Towner argues that the court erred in allowing the agent to testify once the State had rested its case-in-chief, because the testimony should have been offered in the State's case in-chief. The purpose of rebuttal testimony is to explain, repel, counteract or disprove evidence by the adverse party. In this case, the rebuttal testimony regarding the drug sale was offered to rebut falsehoods offered by the defendant about specific instances of his conduct. Issue 5: Proportionality rule Towner argues that his sentence is disproportionate to the crime. Generally, a sentence that does not exceed the maximum period allowed by statute will not be disturbed on appeal. Due to the uniqueness of this particular case, i.e., a first time offender was sentenced to the maximum sentence allowed by law, the judge acknowledges he may have been too harsh, and the prosecuting district attorney states he has no objection to a re-sentencing hearing, the case is remanded for a review of the sentence. Issue 6: Sufficiency of evidence Towner argues that there was insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. The issue is procedurally barred, because Towner failed to provide any argument or authority in support of the issue. In addition, there is no basis for doubting the verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
