Cox v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-KA-01925-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-02-2004
Opinion Author: Griffis, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sale of cocaine - Weight of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Barnes and Ishee, JJ.
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-16-2003
Appealed from: Clay County Circuit Court
Judge: Lee J. Howard
Disposition: CONVICTED OF SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED TO EIGHTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND FIVE YEARS POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AND $5,000 FINE.
District Attorney: Forrest Allgood
Case Number: 8282

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Robert Cox a/k/a Pig




RICHARD BURDINE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY  

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 cocaine - Weight of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Robert Cox was convicted of the sale of cocaine and sentenced to eighteen years and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Cox argues that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because the videotape introduced by the prosecution did not show cocaine being exchanged between the parties. The narcotics agent and the confidential informant gave the jury an eyewitness account of the drug transaction. They identified Cox as the person who sold the drugs. A videotape and audiotape of the transaction were admitted into evidence. Accepting as true all the evidence favorable to the State, the evidence supports the jury's findings. Cox also argues that the narcotics agent did not thoroughly search the confidential informant prior to the transaction. However, the narcotics agent testified that he searched the confidential informant for drugs, paraphernalia, and weapons and then wired him with recording equipment.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court