Brown v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CT-02291-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-02291-COA ; 2005-KA-02291-COA ; 2005-CT-02291-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-29-2007 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: The Judgment of the Court of Apeals is Reversed and the Judgment of the Tate County Circuit Court is Reinstated and Affirmed. Conviction of the sale of a controlled substance, cocaine, and sentence of fifteen (15) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with six (6) years suspended pending future good behavior and other conditions, Affirmed. Appellant shall pay a fine of $5,000.00 and a lab fee of $125.00. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - Right to confront witnesses Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Lamar, J. Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J., With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-04-2005 Appealed from: Tate County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: CONVICTION OF THE SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE, AND SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN (15) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH SIX (6) YEARS SUSPENDED PENDING FUTURE GOOD BEHAVIOR AND OTHER CONDITIONS. District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CR2004-127-BT |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses and previous judgment by the Court of Appeals. See the original COA opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO39202.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Derrick Brown a/k/a Derrick Latory Brown a/k/a Dedrick Brown |
DAVID L. WALKER |
||
| 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: | Sale of controlled substance - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - Right to confront witnesses |
| Summary of the Facts: | Derrick Brown was found guilty of the sale of a controlled substance and sentenced to fifteen years, with six years suspended pending his future good behavior, and to pay a fine of $5,000. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay During the trial, an audiotape was received into evidence and played for the jury. The tape depicted the pre-buy arrangements among the confidential informant and unknown persons as to the quantity of the purchase and the pre-arranged location for the sale to take place. Other than the voice of CI on the tape, neither the CI nor any of the law enforcement witnesses could identify the voices on the audiotape. The State argues that, contrary to the position taken by the Court of Appeals, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the tape into evidence, or if it was error, the error was harmless. M.R.E. 801(c) defines hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. While it is true that neither the CI nor the law enforcement officers who testified for the State could identify Brown’s voice on the tape, the failure to identify Brown does not render the tape inadmissible. In fact, the tape was offered to prove that pre-arrangement conversations had taken place, as the CI and other law enforcement officers had previously testified. In effect, the audiotape corroborated the various witnesses’ testimony. Therefore, sufficient testimony existed to admit the tape for the purpose of proving that the conversations had taken place as well as the gist of those conversations. A discussion of hearsay exceptions is unnecessary when the statements under attack are not hearsay. Issue 2: Right to confront witnesses Brown argues that, since the CI did not know the identity of the voices on the tape recording, other than his own, Brown was unable to subpoena these witnesses to testify at trial and thus to confront and cross-examine them. The State was under no obligation to determine the identity of those persons whose voices were on the tape. If Brown believed that the voices on the tape were those of individuals other than himself and another man, he could have subpoenaed anyone he desired. In addition, Brown suffered no prejudice, much less substantial prejudice, by the admission of the audiotaped phone conversations. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
