Watts v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-02102-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of controlled substance - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801© Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-20-2006 Appealed from: George County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND TO PAY A FINE OF $50,000 District Attorney: Anthony N. Lawrence, III Case Number: 20-2006-10,070(1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JIMI LEVAR WATTS |
RAY T. PRICE |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS | ||
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 controlled substance - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801© |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jimi Watts was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Watts was sentenced to twenty-five years and ordered to pay a fine of $50,000, as well as lab fees and court costs. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Watts argues that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution made its case on the theory of constructive possession. In Mississippi, proximity to the contraband along with any other scintilla of evidence of possession may establish constructive possession. When the defendant is not the owner of the premises the state must show additional incriminating circumstances to justify a finding of constructive possession. While the car Watts was driving was in fact titled in his wife’s name, testimony at trial revealed that Watts drove the car on a regular basis and was the only person the officers had ever observed driving the car. The drugs were not found in the trunk or in any other concealed place in the car. Rather, the agent found the cocaine on the driver’s seat of the car. Though Watts was outside the vehicle when the officers approached, he had been seen driving the car only minutes before they arrived. His proximity to the vehicle showed that he exercised dominion and control over it and its contents. He was in an area known for drug activity, in close proximity to a vehicle a police officer had seen him driving earlier that day. Thus, the State presented sufficient evidence at trial that a reasonable and fair-minded jury could find Watts guilty of possession of a controlled substance. Issue 2: Hearsay Watts argues that statements mentioning the confidential informant were hearsay and should not have been admitted at trial. The testimony in court regarding the confidential informant’s statement was not offered to prove that Watts was actually involved in criminal drug activity. Rather, it was offered to explain why police officers went to the scene in the first place. Therefore, the statement was not hearsay as defined by M.R.E. 801(c). When an officer’s testimony about the substance of a conversation with an informant is offered to show the reason for the officer’s presence at the scene of investigation, an informant’s tip is admissible to show why an officer acted as he did and was present at the said scene. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
