Gray v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01596-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-31-2006 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Previous convictions of confidential informant - M.R.E. 613(b) - M.R.E. 609(b) - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - Jury deliberations Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick and Roberts, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-01-2004 Appealed from: LAMAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: R.I. Prichard, III Disposition: NOT GUILTY COUNT I -SALE OR TRANSFER OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - HABITUAL OFFENDER(COCAINE 0.1 GRAM) GUILTY COUNT II - SALE OR TRANSFER OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - HABITUAL OFFENDER (COCAINE 0.1 GRAM) Case Number: 2003K-704P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Larry Darnell Gray |
DEBORAH J. GAMBRELL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOSE BENJAMIN SIMO |
|
|
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 - Previous convictions of confidential informant - M.R.E. 613(b) - M.R.E. 609(b) - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - Jury deliberations |
| Summary of the Facts: | Larry Gray was convicted of the sale or transfer of a controlled substance, as a habitual offender. He was sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Previous convictions of confidential informant Gray argues that the court committed reversible error by denying trial counsel the opportunity to impeach the informant’s credibility through inquiry into previous convictions more than ten years in the past. Before a party may impeach a witness under M.R.E. 613(b) there must be an actual contradiction in fact between the testimony and the prior statement. The contradiction must relate to testimony given by that witness in the case at bar. The testimony by the informant is not contradicted by any prior statements. There was no testimony at trial concerning the informant’s conviction in 1989 and the mention of this conviction is barred by M.R.E. 609(b). Issue 2: Other crimes’ evidence Gray alleges that reversible error was committed when the informant was allowed to testify to an exchange with Gray’s sister in which the informant owed twenty dollars to Gray for giving his sister twenty dollars worth of crack cocaine. Gray argues that this testimony is prohibited by M.R.E. 404(b). Where substantially necessary to present to the jury the complete story of the crime, evidence or testimony may be given though it may reveal or suggest other crimes. The testimony concerning the twenty dollar debt was necessary to explain the scenario that is being played out on the surveillance tape. This testimony was not presented to prove that Gray was guilty of the crimes charged, but rather to tell the complete story of the underlying transactions to the crimes charged. Issue 3: Jury deliberations Gray argues that the deliberations of the jury that commenced at 9:50 p.m. and concluded at 2:28 a.m., with a verdict of not guilty on the first count and guilty on the second count, was reversible error. Trial judges have broad discretion in determining when trial will begin and how long they will continue on any given day. Here, the jury was offered the option to begin the deliberations that night or return on Saturday morning to conclude the trial and decide the verdict. This was not a requirement by the trial court, but rather the court offering the jury the option of deliberating that evening or returning for deliberations on a Saturday, trial counsel deferring to that decision and the jury making the decision to deliberate that evening. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
