Peterson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-00642-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-00642-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-09-2010 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute - Sufficiency of evidence - Stipulation - M.R.E. 901 - Limiting instruction - M.R.E. 404(b) - Validity of search warrant - Motion to suppress - Habitual offender Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-20-2004 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND SENTENCED AS A SUBSEQUENT AND A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO SIXTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PROBATION OR PAROLE District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2001-0258-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | THORNTON PETERSON, JR. A/K/A
THORNTON PETERSON |
STEPHEN NICK |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT | ||
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 cocaine with intent to distribute - Sufficiency of evidence - Stipulation - M.R.E. 901 - Limiting instruction - M.R.E. 404(b) - Validity of search warrant - Motion to suppress - Habitual offender |
| Summary of the Facts: | Thornton Peterson, Jr., was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. Peterson was sentenced as a subsequent offender and a habitual offender to sixty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Peterson argues that the State did not prove every element of the offense charged because the testimony of a witness was tainted by her illegal drug use. However, the credibility of a witness is an issue for the jury. Issue 2: Stipulation Peterson argues that the parties’ stipulation that the substance was cocaine did not waive the requirement that the stipulation itself be authenticated and admitted into evidence in accordance with M.R.E. 901. Both parties agreed to the stipulation. The circuit judge read the words contained on the exhibit and referred to the stipulation as a “fact” agreed to by both parties. The reading of the stipulation to the jury effectively places the stipulation in evidence. The parties’ agreement to stipulate to the admission of evidence waives the usual authentication requirements. Issue 3: Jury instructions Peterson argues that a limiting instruction was necessary to warn the jury that they were only to consider evidence of other crimes for the purposes of demonstrating Peterson’s intent as to the drugs in his possession. The instruction is a misstatement of M.R.E. 404(b) because it instructs the jury that it cannot consider allegations of the defendant’s prior bad acts “in any way.” It is not a limiting instruction warning the jury that such evidence may be used merely for the issue of intent. Counsel for Peterson failed to request a limiting instruction. The burden to request a Rule 404(b) limiting instruction was upon Peterson’s counsel. Peterson also argues that the jury was not given guidance regarding the element of intent. Peterson’s counsel made no objection based on the argument that this instruction did not sufficiently express the meaning of each element of the crime. This failure to timely object to the instruction at trial waives this issue on appeal. Issue 4: Validity of search warrant Peterson argues that the search warrant was invalid; thus, the cocaine collected subject to the warrant and the warrant itself were improperly admitted into evidence. However, Peterson did not object to the admission of the warrant into evidence at either the suppression hearing or at the trial. The circuit judge cannot be held in error on an issue that was never presented to him at trial. Issue 5: Motion to suppress Peterson argues that his motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search should have been granted because the statement of underlying facts and circumstances used to obtain the warrant was misplaced and not available at trial. The judge found sufficient evidence to constitute probable cause for the warrant. Such finding was based on substantial credible evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Issue 6: Habitual offender Peterson argues that he was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender because the State was allowed to amend the habitual-offender portion of his indictment just prior to sentencing. However, it is clear from the record that the amendment merely corrected the sentencing date of one of the underlying convictions contained in the habitual-offender portion of the indictment. The original indictment put Peterson on notice that the State planned to use his prior conviction to enhance his sentence in this case. Peterson also argues that the State did not prove the length of time Peterson served on his prior offenses. However, section 99-19-81 does not require that Peterson actually serve more than one year; instead, it merely requires that Peterson received a sentence for one year or more for two separate convictions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
