Hargett v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CT-00958-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-KP-00958-COA ; 2008-KP-00958-COA ; 2008-CT-00958-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-26-2011 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of marijuana & Sale of hydrocodone - Prior convictions - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-14-2008 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: Michael M. Taylor Disposition: A jury found Hargett guilty on both charges, and he was sentenced as a habitual offender to six years for the sale of marijuana and sixty years for the sale of hydrocodone. District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 07-039-PKT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Harold Donell Hargett a/k/a Junior |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 marijuana & Sale of hydrocodone - Prior convictions - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Harold Hargett was convicted of the sale of less than thirty grams of marijuana and the sale of ten dosage units of hydrocodone. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to six years for the sale of marijuana and sixty years for the sale of hydrocodone. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pursuant to M.R.E. 404(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith but may be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Testimony will be excluded under M.R.E. 403 if it is overly prejudicial. In this case, the CI first stated she knew Hargett because he lived down the street from her. She then unnecessarily explained she had met Hargett while buying drugs. When the agent was asked how many times he had bought drugs at this specific location, he unnecessarily answered the number of times he had bought drugs from Hargett. When discussing a prior case on Hargett’s brother, it was not necessary to refer to Hargett as though he was connected to his brother’s prior drug sale. This prejudicial testimony, continually admitted throughout trial, affected Hargett’s constitutional right to a fair trial. The testimony that Hargett had sold drugs to the informant would not have had the same persuasive effect without testimony that he had previously sold drugs. Certainly it cannot be determined that a guilty verdict would have been reached without testimony of Hargett’s prior convictions. The jury heard continual references to Hargett’s prior convictions before he had any opportunity to present a defense. The improperly admitted evidence is overly prejudicial and meets no exception under Rule 404(b). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
