Johnson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-00179-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-00179-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-02-2005 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Admission of report - Cross-examination - Photograph - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-23-2004 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: Appellant was convicted on Count One, the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, and Count Two for the sale of a Schedule I controlled substance and sentenced to terms of 30 and 3 years to run concurrent. District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 03-CR-045-LE-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Donniver Terrell Johnson |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Admission of report - Cross-examination - Photograph - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Donniver Johnson was convicted of the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, namely cocaine, and the sale of a Schedule I controlled substance, namely marijuana in an amount of less than one ounce. He was sentenced on Count one to thirty years and on Count two to three years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of report Johnson argues that the court erred by admitting a report showing a correction to a discrepancy in the amount of drugs submitted to the Mississippi Crime Lab. The agent submitted two evidence bags for two different cases. Only one of these evidence bags related to Johnson’s case. However, the crime lab was informed later that the description labels of the two evidence packages had been inadvertently switched. Thereafter, the bar code descriptions placed on the two evidence packages were corrected to reflect the correct package description. Johnson argues that the document and the explanation were inadmissible as hearsay; denial to the right of confrontation of a witness against an accused; and a violation of M.R.E. 602. Where the defense attorney inquires into a subject on cross-examination of the state's witness, the prosecutor on rebuttal is certainly entitled to elaborate on the matter. Once the defense cross-examined a witness as to these documents, the door was opened for the State to discuss and attempt to admit the explanation into evidence to clarify and explain the discrepancy for the different package weights. Issue 2: Cross-examination Johnson argues that when the agent was recalled by the State during an identification hearing, defense counsel was denied an opportunity to cross-examine him in violation of M.R.E. 611. The court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the State could ask the agent if he could identify the person that sold him drugs. Johnson’s counsel was given ample opportunity both in the presence of the jury and during voir dire to question the agent concerning the identification of Johnson. Issue 3: Photograph Johnson argues that the court erred by denying the admission of photographs of him with long, braided hair. Johnson contended that he had long, braided hair at the time of the drug deal, whereas the agent described Johnson as having a low haircut on the date of the drug transaction. The court found that the photographs were untimely in relation to the drug sale in June 2002. The photographs were taken in May 2002, a month prior to the alleged drug sale in June 2002. Further, Johnson’s mother stated that Johnson could have changed his hairstyle between the months of May and June 2002. Pursuant to M.R.E. 401 and 403, the court acted within its discretion in excluding the photographs. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
