Hammett v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01318-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-03-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of controlled substance - Recusal of judge - Preservation of evidence - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-23-2004 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE, AND SENTENCED TO SIXTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER, WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF EARLY RELEASE OR PAROLE District Attorney: Ronnie Lee Harper Case Number: 04-KR-0069J |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Larry Darnell Hammett |
EILEEN M. MAHER |
||
| 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 controlled substance - Recusal of judge - Preservation of evidence - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Larry Hammett was found guilty of possession of a schedule II controlled substance, and was sentenced to sixteen years as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Recusal of judge Hammett argues that the trial judge erred when he refused to recuse himself without holding a hearing on the merits of Hammett’s recusal request and that the actions of the judge during Hammett’s earlier perjury trial show prejudice. Judges should disqualify themselves in proceedings in which their impartiality might be questioned by a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances. Hammett has presented no evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that the judge was qualified and unbiased. The record shows that the judge’s conduct was professional and evidenced no prejudice toward Hammett. In fact, he complimented Hammett on his understanding of the law, and was very patient in listening to Hammett’s arguments and contentions. Issue 2: Preservation of evidence Hammett argues that his indictment should have been quashed because of the State’s failure to preserve evidence. This issue was presented to the trial judge who prohibited the State from presenting testimony about the contents of the missing video footage. This ruling was significant, because several of the State’s witnesses were prepared to testify that they had viewed the footage, which allegedly showed Hammett removing drugs from his sock and placing them in the trash can. The court did not err in informing Hammett that the State would be allowed to put on testimony if Hammett first opened the door. If Hammett had testified to the jury about the deleted footage, it would have been proper for the court to then allow the State to put on similar testimony. There is no evidence that the video footage had an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed or that the State acted intentionally or fraudulently in destroying the video footage. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Hammett argues that his conviction should be overturned because the evidence in his case was insufficient to support his conviction. The evidence in this case, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational jury to find that all the elements of Hammett’s crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence included testimony of an eyewitness, limited access of individuals to the waste basket in question, and Hammett’s proximity to the basket. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
