Conner v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-KA-01298-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-05-2010
Opinion Author: Griffis, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Lay witness testimony - M.R.E. 701 - M.R.E. 702
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-03-2009
Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court
Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas
Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A CONVICTED FELON AND SENTENCED TO SIX AND ONE-HALF YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH ONE AND ONEHALF YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION
District Attorney: Brenda Fay Mitchell
Case Number: 2008-0104

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Terrance Conner




RICHARD B. LEWIS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD  

    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 firearm by convicted felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Lay witness testimony - M.R.E. 701 - M.R.E. 702

    Summary of the Facts: Terrance Conner was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to six and one-half years, with five years to serve, one and one-half years suspended, and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Conner argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proof. Conner admits that he was a convicted felon but disputes that he was in possession of a gun. The State met its burden of proof based on the officer’s testimony, coupled with the fact that the gun was recovered where he said he had seen Conner drop it. The officer testified that there was no doubt that he saw Conner throw a gun down to the grass. Issue 2: Lay witness testimony An officer was called by the State as a lay witness to testify about external factors that affect whether or not fingerprints can be recovered off of a gun. Conner’s counsel objected and argued that the officer was not an expert in fingerprint analysis. The circuit court judge overruled the objection and allowed the officer to testify according to her training and experience. Conner argues that this was error. It is possible for an expert in an area of knowledge to give a lay opinion, but not if the witness is operating in his professional capacity. Where a witness is to give testimony derived from specialized knowledge gained by education or experience, the testimony is not lay opinion testimony. Here, the State asked the officer about external factors that affect whether or not fingerprints are likely to be found on a handgun. The officer’s testimony was based on her experience as an officer and the training she had received in fingerprint analysis. Pursuant to M.R.E. 701 and 702, her testimony was that of an expert witness. Thus, the circuit court erred when it allowed her to testify as to matters derived from her specialized knowledge. However, Conner has failed to show how he was prejudiced or denied a fundamentally fair trial. In fact, the officer’s testimony actually supported Conner’s claims that the gun was not his because it did not bear his fingerprints.


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