Watts v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01872-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-01872-SCT ; 2004-KA-01872-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-14-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of precursor chemicals with intent - Motion to suppress - Admission of evidence - Sufficiency of evidence - Overruling of objections - Jury instructions 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: 08-23-2004 Appealed from: Lamar County Circuit Court Judge: Michael R. Eubanks Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF PRECURSOR CHEMICALS WITH INTENT TO MANUFACTURE A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH FIVE YEARS TO BE SERVED AT THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THE REMAINING TEN YEARS TO BE SERVED UNDER THE POST-RELEASE PROVISIONS WITH A FIVE YEAR SUPERVISION PERIOD AND ORDERED TO PAY A $5,000 FINE District Attorney: Claiborne McDonald Case Number: 2003-K-098E |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ellis Wayne Watts |
WILLIAM L. DUCKER |
||
| 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 precursor chemicals with intent - Motion to suppress - Admission of evidence - Sufficiency of evidence - Overruling of objections - Jury instructions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ellis Watts was convicted of possession of precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture a controlled substance. He was sentenced to fifteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion to suppress Watts argues that the court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and that he was entitled to an in camera hearing on his motion to suppress either prior to the trial or outside the presence of the jury. Notwithstanding the fact that the judge did not rule on the motion until near the end of the trial, he did not abuse his discretion because there was substantial evidence to support his ruling. Watts was stopped after law enforcement officials received credible information that he had purchased some precursor chemicals. Based on this information, the deputy had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop of Watts’ vehicle. Once Watts’ vehicle was stopped, he gave the deputy permission to search his vehicle. Issue 2: Admission of evidence Watts argues that the cans of starter fluid, the siphon hose, the two gas cans, and the four boxes of pills should not have been introduced into evidence because they were the products of an illegal search. The investigative stop exception of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows a police officer to conduct a brief investigative stop if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, result in the conclusion that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent. Here, Watts was stopped after he was observed purchasing two precursor chemicals at two different Wal-Marts within a short span of time. Based on the information received from Wal-Mart security personnel, the deputy clearly had reasonable suspicion to conclude that criminal behavior had occurred or was imminent. Moreover, after the deputy initiated the investigatory traffic stop, Watts consented to a search of his vehicle, which resulted in the discovery of the other items he contends should not have been admitted into evidence. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Watts argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove his intent to manufacture a controlled substance. Watts was found in possession of two precursor chemicals, a fact which is uncontroverted. Although Watts gave explanations for the reasons why he possessed these items, it was up to the jury to accept or reject his explanation. Further, Watts admitted to using methamphetamine the day before. A search of Watts’ home uncovered other items associated with methamphetamine manufacturing. Therefore, the evidence presented was sufficient to support a conviction. Issue 4: Overruling of objections Watts argues that the court erred in overruling certain objections that he made. He argues that a comment by a member of the venire, a Wal-Mart employee, that she had seen Watts in the store a lot tainted the entire venire. However, the comment by a member of the venire did not result in substantial or irreparable harm to Watts’ case because Watts, in his own testimony, admitted to frequent trips to Wal-Mart. Watts also argues that the court erred in admitting rebuttal testimony by the prosecution, because it was not in response to anything brought out in his defense of the case. A review of the record reveals that the rebuttal testimony was properly admitted since it was in response to testimony by Watts. Watts also argues that he was not afforded an opportunity for surrebuttal, but his trial counsel never requested surrebuttal. Issue 5: Jury instructions Watts argues that the court erred in refusing to grant two of his jury instructions. Watts argues that one of his instructions should have been granted because it properly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt, and it was not repetitive of any other instruction given. Watts also argues that the court’s granting of the presumption of innocence instruction did not suffice for instructing the jury on reasonable doubt. Watts’ assertions cannot be supported by the record because he failed to provide the Court with all given instructions. The record reflects that eleven instructions were given, and Watts only provided the two refused instructions for review. Because Watts failed to present a sufficient record to support his arguments, this assignment of error is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
