Watson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01747-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-01747-COA ; 2007-CT-01747-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-25-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of marijuana & Sale of cocaine - Videotape - M.R.E. 404(b) - Other crimes’ evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-14-2007 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, SALE OF MARIJUANA, AND SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS AND COUNT II, SALE OF COCAINE, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS, WITH EIGHT YEARS SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AND TWELVE YEARS, WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT II TO RUN CONCURRENTLY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2004-275CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | SPARKY DARNEZ WATSON |
BRENDA JACKSON PATTERSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY | ||
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 marijuana & Sale of cocaine - Videotape - M.R.E. 404(b) - Other crimes’ evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sparky Watson was convicted of sale of marijuana and sale of cocaine. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Videotape Watson argues that the trial court erred in admitting a portion of the surveillance videotape that showed Watson passing a bag to the agent, who examined it and passed it to the confidential informant. The sale of cocaine that Watson was charged with occurred approximately ten minutes later, and was not entirely visible on the tape. Watson disputes the trial court’s finding that the videotape did not show evidence of an uncharged crime. Even if the videotape did show evidence of a crime, such as an attempted sale, it was part of the same transaction or occurrence as the subsequent drug sales Watson was charged with and was admissible under M.R.E. 404(b). The full surveillance videotape was not offered to show Watson's character or that he was acting in conformity with a particular character trait; instead, it was evidence of the very actions for which he was indicted. Watson also argues that the trial court erred in admitting the contested portion of the surveillance videotape because of its potential to mislead the jury. While there may have been some possibility of confusion had the videotape been shown to the jury absent any elaboration, the agent clearly explained on both direct and cross-examination that the sale of cocaine occurred off-camera, later on the videotape. Issue 2: Other crimes’ evidence Watson argues that testimony by the agent about a “PC buy” amounted to evidence of another crime with which he was not charged. However, Watson himself entered the lab report into evidence. A defendant may not, himself, introduce evidence at trial and then assert on appeal that the admission of the evidence constituted reversible error. Since Watson’s attorney elicited the initial testimony about the second bag of cocaine, admitted the lab reports, and used this evidence to raise doubt about the State’s case, the State was entitled to elicit testimony explaining the discrepancy. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
