Watson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01422-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-07-2006 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-20-2005 Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO LIFE IN PRISON IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: DEE BATES Case Number: 04-307 MS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Cedric Watson |
DAVID FITZGERALD LINZEY |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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 - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cedric Watson was convicted of possession of cocaine and was sentenced to life in prison. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Other crimes’ evidence Watson argues that the prosecution violated M.R.E. 404(b) when the prosecution asked an officer why Watson had been used as an informant in the past. The defense clearly opened the door to this line of questioning by asking the officer if Watson had worked as an informant in the past and whether or not the department had successful results. Thus, the trial court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Watson argues that the evidence is insufficient because of the inconsistency of the field report and the lab report. The jury heard the testimony of the witnesses and made a decision based upon what they heard. The jury decided how much emphasis to place on the discrepancy between the two reports, and its finding will not be disturbed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
