Pena v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-02366-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-20-2006 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Admission of testimony - Limiting instruction - M.R.E. 404 - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-22-2004 Appealed from: Oktibbeha County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: CONVICTION FOR SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TWELVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: FORREST ALLGOOD Case Number: 2001-0203-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Juan Pedro Pena |
PEARSON LIDDELL |
||
| 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: | Sale of cocaine - Admission of testimony - Limiting instruction - M.R.E. 404 - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Juan Pena was convicted of the sale of cocaine and sentenced to twelve years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pena argues that the court erred in allowing an officer’s testimony as to the transaction without allowing the jury to view the video of the incident. The officer testified to events that he personally witnessed. He did not testify to anything that happened on the video. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion. Pena also argues that the limiting instruction, given when allowing the testimony about the incident, insinuated the truth of the events, which would have been mitigated had the jury been allowed to view the video. Any evidence of prior acts offered to show intent to distribute is not barred by M.R.E. 404 and is properly admissible if it passes muster under M.R.E. 403 and is accompanied by a proper limiting instruction. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony under M.R.E. 403, and because the limiting instruction was properly given, this claim has no merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
