Shanks v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01958-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-01958-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-05-2006 Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of marijuana - Sufficiency of evidence - Jury instructions - Prejudicial statements Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-08-2004 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF MORE THAN ONE KILOGRAM BUT LESS THAN FIVE KILOGRAMS OF MARIJUANA. SENTENCE OF TWENTY FOUR YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: ANTHONY J. BUCKLEY Case Number: 2004-204-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Shanks |
SHARON D. HENDERSON |
||
| 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 marijuana - Sufficiency of evidence - Jury instructions - Prejudicial statements |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Shanks was convicted of the crime of possession of marijuana. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Shanks argues that since he was not the owner of the property upon which the drugs were located, no presumption arises that he exercised dominion and control over them. However, several incriminating facts were presented to the jury. Shanks was present at a residence that was not his own at a time that the package was to be delivered. Shanks received calls on his cell telephone from the location where the drugs were shipped. Shanks signed for the package by using a fake name. There was no evidence that the name of the sender, Roy Shawn Drummond, or of the recipient, David Drummond, were those of actual people. These factors support the jury’s conclusion that Shanks exercised dominion and control over the package knowing the package contained the drugs. Issue 2: Jury instructions Shanks argues that the court erred in refusing to give certain jury instructions he requested. He argues that some of his proposed instructions were vital because they gave a more complete definition of the elements of the charge. The jury was instructed on the requirement that Shanks have knowing possession of the contraband. There is no merit to the argument that additional explanations of the knowledge needed for possession had to be given. Issue 3: Prejudicial statements Shanks argues that the prosecution engaged in misconduct by making prejudicial statements which include referencing the drugs as “that big ole box of dope,” and certain statements made in the closing argument. The key issue in reviewing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments is whether the statements denied a defendant a fair trial. Evidence was presented that a box of marijuana was delivered to the accused. The prosecutor’s flippant description of that event did not affect the fairness of the trial. The statements made by the prosecution, while a bit rambling and tending to bring in extraneous considerations, largely were focused on the need to consider that drugs were dangerous and possession should be a crime, even if citizens in some other named states did not think so. These statements did not interfere with the fairness of the trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
