Burchfield v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CT-00261-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00261-SCT ; 2002-KA-00261-COA ; 2002-KA-00261-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-04-2004 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of pseudoephedrine - Illegal search - Probable cause - Expert testimony - Package labels - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - Market lists exception - M.R.E. 803(17) - Excessive sentence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-15-2002 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: George B. Ready Disposition: POSSESSION OF OVER 250 DOSAGE UNITS OF EPHEDRINE OR PSEUDOEPHEDRINE: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC. District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: 2001-348-RD |
|
| Note: | Affirmed the court of appeals and the trial court. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Christopher Burchfield |
JACK R. JONES, III |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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 pseudoephedrine - Illegal search - Probable cause - Expert testimony - Package labels - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - Market lists exception - M.R.E. 803(17) - Excessive sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Christopher Burchfield was convicted of possession of pseudoephedrine, with knowledge that it would be used to manufacture a controlled substance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Burchfield filed a petition for writ of certiorari which was granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Illegal search Burchfield argues that the police lacked probable cause to make the stop and search the vehicle in which he was a passenger. An investigative stop of a suspect may be made so long as an officer has a reasonable suspicion grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person he encounters was involved in or is wanted in connection with a felony. In this case, the police were informed by a Walgreens clerk that two white males in a Cadillac with Arkansas license plates had each purchased a quantity of pills containing pseudoephedrine and were leaving the parking lot, westbound on Goodman Road from Highway 51. Within minutes, an officer spotted two white males in a Cadillac with Arkansas license plates, on Goodman Road. Under these circumstances, the officer had a reasonable suspicion which justified an investigatory stop. Issue 2: Expert testimony An officer was called as an expert to testify about the manufacture of methamphetamine and to explain the ingredients and steps necessary to produce the drug. Burchfield argues that this testimony was prejudicial, particularly since he was not on trial for manufacturing the drug. One of the elements necessary for the State to prove against Burchfield was that he knew, or reasonably should have known, that the ephedrine would be used to manufacture a controlled substance. The officer Cox was properly qualified to provide the testimony. Issue 3: Package labels To prove that the pills found in the back seat and trunk contained pseudoephedrine or ephedrine, the State offered the package labels which disclosed the ingredients – one of which was pseudoephedrine. The question before the Court is whether the label of ingredients is sufficiently trustworthy for admission into evidence. Since the printed statement of ingredients on the label unquestionably constitutes an out-of-court statement, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the pills contained Pseudoephedrine), it is hearsay under M.R.E. 801(c). M.R.E. 803(17) provides, as an exception to the hearsay rule, market quotations, tabulations, lists, directories, or other published compilations, generally used and relied upon by the public or by persons in particular occupations. The labels unquestionably constitute a list of the ingredients in the medication. In addition, there is no hearsay evidence more trustworthy and relied upon by the public than the ingredients label on an unopened box of medication purchased from a drug store. The Food and Drug Administration regulates over-the-counter medications, and failure to properly list the ingredients places the pharmaceutical manufacturer in peril. Therefore, the label falls within the M.R.E. 803(17) hearsay exception. That is not to say that every label is admissible. The trial court must still evaluate the circumstances and, where reasonable suspicions are raised, such labels may be properly excluded. Burchfield also argues that the labels violated his right to confront witnesses against him. The critical question is one of trustworthiness and reliability. As stated, the ingredients listed on labels of unopened, over-the-counter medications are, as a general proposition, sufficiently reliable to overcome the hearsay and Sixth Amendment objections. The author of the label on the non-prescription, over-the-counter medication at issue here, was not a witness against the accused. As such, this non-testimonial hearsay is exempt from the Confrontation Clause challenges. Issue 4: Excessive sentence Burchfield argues that the court erred in imposing the maximum sentence of five years for conviction of a first offender. The sentence was within the statutory limit and, therefore, is not an abuse of discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
