Graham v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01466-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-08-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Amendment of indictment - Jury instruction 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: 07-22-2004 Appealed from: Neshoba County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotton Disposition: CONVICTED IN COUNT ONE OF SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (CLONAZAPAM) AND CONVICTED IN COUNT TWO OF SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (HYDROCODONE). SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ON EACH COUNT, SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY, WITH FOUR YEARS SUSPENDED, SIXTEEN YEARS TO SERVE. FOUR YEARS OF PROBATION ALSO ORDERED. District Attorney: MARK SHELDON DUNCAN Case Number: 04-CR-031-NS-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Edna Earl Graham |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS |
||
| 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: | Sale of controlled substance - Amendment of indictment - Jury instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edna Graham was convicted of two counts of sale of a controlled substance. She was sentenced to ten years on each count, with each ten-year sentence to run consecutively, for a total of twenty years. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amendment of indictment Graham argues that the court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment to reflect that the drug sold by Graham is a Schedule III controlled substance and not a Schedule II controlled substance. This issue is procedurally barred, because it was not raised in any form below. In addition, Graham was not prejudiced by the amendment of the indictment. Graham’s defense, as put forward at trial, was that she did not remember selling the pills and did not, in fact, sell the pills. This defense was changed in no way by the amendment to the indictment. Issue 2: Jury instruction Graham argues that the court erred in refusing her proposed jury instruction regarding a defendant’s competency to testify on her own behalf. Defendants are not entitled to an instruction which informs the jury that the defendant is a competent witness in his own behalf. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
