Howard v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00799-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-29-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of methamphetamine - Dismissal of juror - Illegal search - Redirect examination Judge(s) Concurring: LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, 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: 03-14-2007 Appealed from: NESHOBA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I - POSSESSION OF MORE THAN 0.1 GRAM AND LESS THAN 2 GRAMS OF METHAMPHETAMINE AND SENTENCE OF EIGHT YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $1,500; COUNT II - POSSESSION OF LESS THAN 30 GRAMS OF MARIJUANA AND ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $250. District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 06-CR-0111-NS-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RANDY SHON HOWARD |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS,
CHRISTOPHER A. COLLINS |
|
|
| 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: | Possession of methamphetamine - Dismissal of juror - Illegal search - Redirect examination |
| Summary of the Facts: | Randy Howard was convicted of possession of more than 0.1 gram and less than two grams of methamphetamine and sentenced to eight years and ordered to pay a fine of $1,500. He was also convicted of possession of less than thirty grams of marijuana and ordered to pay a fine of $250. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Dismissal of juror Howard argues that the court erred in dismissing a juror after the jury was seated and the first witness had been called, but before direct examination had begun. The juror was dismissed by the circuit court when it was discovered that she previously had worked with Howard’s father. A defendant must demonstrate that actual prejudice resulted from the dismissal and substitution of the juror with an alternate juror. In light of the failure by Howard to demonstrate any actual prejudice suffered by the dismissal of the juror, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Illegal search Howard argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the fruit of the search and in overruling his objection to its introduction into evidence. Howard argues that the search performed by the officers was invalid because the probable cause was pretextual, and a traffic stop is not grounds for a search. The decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. The evidence in support of probable cause must be viewed in light of the observations, knowledge, and training of the law enforcement officers involved in the warrantless search. Here, the officers testified that Howard was stopped because they witnessed him driving an all-terrain vehicle illegally on a public road, and he was also speeding. The officers further testified that they spotted drugs when Howard opened his fanny pack to retrieve his license. While a warrant is generally required before the search for or seizure of evidence may be conducted, no warrant is required to seize an object in plain view when viewed by an officer from a place he has the lawful right to be, its incriminating character is readily apparent and the officer has a lawful right of access to the evidence. Therefore, there was no error in the circuit court’s determination that there was sufficient probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred, thus necessitating the traffic stop. Further, testimony established that the suspected marijuana was in plain sight. Issue 3: Redirect examination Howard argues that the prosecutor, on redirect, improperly questioned the Mississippi Crime Laboratory forensic scientist about a matter not discussed in the cross-examination. During the cross-examination, Howard asked if the scales were calibrated on the date the witness analyzed the substances in question. The witness replied that the scales were not calibrated; instead, the procedure was to place a known weight on the scale to make sure that the scale was reading properly. In response, on redirect, the State asked whether the machine was working properly on the date she weighed the substances in question. The court properly held that this line of questioning was within the scope of the cross-examination. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
