Ward v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00656-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-00656-COA ; 2005-CT-00656-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-05-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of marihuana while possessing firearm - Search warrant - Refusal of evidence - Entrapment - Jury instructions Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-02-2005 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN ONE OUNCE BUT LESS THAN A KILOGRAM, WHILE POSSESSING A FIREARM, AND SENTENCED TO SIX YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND A FINE OF $6,000. District Attorney: JOYCE IVY CHILES Case Number: 2004-0015-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ronnie Ward |
ALSEE MCDANIEL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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 marihuana while possessing firearm - Search warrant - Refusal of evidence - Entrapment - Jury instructions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ronnie Ward was convicted of possession of marihuana in an amount greater than one ounce but less than a kilogram, while possessing a firearm. He was sentenced to six years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Search warrant Ward argues that the affidavit standing alone does not support a finding that probable cause existed for the issuance of a search warrant for his home and that the State’s failure to offer any corroborating evidence to show that its confidential informant is reliable and truthful violated his constitutional rights. In determining whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant based on information provided by an informant, the task of the issuing magistrate is to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. The record in this case is devoid of a statement of the underlying facts and circumstances. Therefore, Ward’s argument regarding the adequacy of the affidavit supporting the application for search warrant cannot be reviewed on appeal. Issue 2: Refusal of evidence Ward argues that the court erred in not allowing certain evidence which was relevant to his assertion that he was entrapped, specifically, evidence regarding past misconduct of the CDDTF in handling drug seizures and evidence regarding the CDDTF’s motivation for investigating him. At trial, Ward testified that the marihuana which was found in his home was not there before the CDDTF agents searched the house. Ward therefore contends he was entrapped. However, Ward does not contend that he sold any marihuana, nor does he admit that he possessed any. Therefore, his argument that he was entrapped is without merit. Issue 3: Jury instructions Ward argues that the court erred in giving jury instructions regarding the enhanced penalty for possession of marihuana while in possession of a firearm. Generally the government must provide evidence that the weapon was found in the same location where drugs or drug paraphernalia are stored or where part of the transaction occurred. Here, two of the firearms were found in the same room where the marihuana was found. Additionally, some marihuana cigarettes were found in the pocket of a jacket owned by Ward. There also was drug paraphernalia found in the room where the guns were found. This evidence is sufficient to show a nexus between the drug activity and the firearms. Ward also argues that he should not be subject to the enhanced penalty because some of the firearms needed to be oiled and all of the firearms needed to be loaded before they would fire. The fact that the firearms were unloaded and may have needed oiling does not preclude Ward from receiving an enhanced sentence. Section 41-29-152(2) makes no such distinction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
