Downing v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-KA-00263-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-08-2008
Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sale of cocaine - Chain of custody - M.R.E. 901(a) - 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: 02-01-2007
Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court
Judge: Charles E. Webster
Disposition: CONVICTED OF THE SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED TO BE SERVED ON SUPERVISED PROBATION AND TO PAY A FINE OF $5,000 WITH $2,500 SUSPENDED.
District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen
Case Number: 2006-0138

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: MILTON DOWNING A/K/A MILTON LEON DOWNING




GEORGE T. HOLMES, LESLIE S. LEE



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER  

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 - Chain of custody - M.R.E. 901(a) - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Milton Downing was convicted of sale of cocaine. He was sentenced to ten years, with five years suspended to be served on supervised probation. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Chain of custody The State offered a bag of cocaine into evidence. Downing objected, arguing that the State had failed to establish a proper chain of custody. Downing now argues that the cocaine should not have been admitted into evidence because the agent's confusion rendered his testimony unreliable and that the fact that the agent made multiple buys that day supported a conclusion that, due to accidental substitution, the cocaine admitted as an exhibit was not the substance which the agent purchased from Downing. Under M.R.E. 901(a), to establish the connection necessary for relevance, the proponent of the controlled substance must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponents claim. The fundamental inquiry under Rule 901(a) is whether sufficient evidence exists to enable a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence is what it is claimed to be. Therefore, if a witness makes a positive permissible identification of the object that it is what its proponent claims, then there is no basis for a chain of custody objection. The test for continuous possession of evidence by the State is whether there is any indication or reasonable inference of probable tampering with the evidence or substitution of the evidence. Here, there was sufficient evidence to enable a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the bag of cocaine admitted as the State's exhibit was that substance sold by Downing to the agent. The agent pointed out his initials on the bag, the case number, and his seal. Though he initially was mistaken about which agent carried the substance to the lab, the State established through the lab report and the agent's subsequent testimony which agent carried the substance to the lab. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Downing argues that, due to the inadequacy of the agent's identification of him as the person who sold the cocaine, the jury was bound to accept Downing's conflicting testimony that he was elsewhere in Clarksdale at the time of the cocaine sale. Downing's argument fails to acknowledge the testimony of another officer who indicated that he had a high degree of familiarity with Downing, stemming from numerous encounters with him, and who testified that Downing was the person on the videotape. The totality of the evidence supporting Downing's identification as the cocaine seller was sufficient to enable a rational jury to conclude he was that person.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court