Arguelles v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01039-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01039-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-18-2003 Opinion Author: Bridges, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute - Invalid indictment - Suppression of evidence - Detention of mailed package - Sufficiency of evidence - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Newly discovered evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: McMillin, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-13-2002 Appealed from: Scott County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: POSSESSION OF MORE THAN ONE KILOGRAM OF MARIJUANA WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF SIX YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC. District Attorney: Ken Turner Case Number: 02-CR-022-SC |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Margarita A. Arguelles |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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 marijuana with intent to distribute - Invalid indictment - Suppression of evidence - Detention of mailed package - Sufficiency of evidence - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Newly discovered evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Margarita Arguelles was convicted of possession of more than one kilogram of marijuana with intent to distribute and was sentenced to serve six years. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Invalid indictment Arguelles’ indictment did not contain the signature of any member of the grand jury as required by section 99-7-9. Arguelles argues the validity of an indictment is derived from its indorsement by the grand jury. She raises this issue for the first time on appeal. Because procedural, non-jurisdictional matters cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, this issue is waived. Issue 2: Suppression of evidence Arguelles argues that the postal inspector’s retention of two parcels for some length of time before requesting a search warrant was an unreasonable seizure of her property. The primary piece of evidence used by the State to reach probable cause was an affidavit by an inspector which Arguelles objected to on the ground that it contained hearsay. The magistrate must objectively have enough evidence for a reasonably competent magistrate to believe any hearsay evidence exists and can be found. The evidence presented to the magistrate in the affidavit along with proof of the drug dog’s alerting to the package was sufficient probable cause. Although the detention of the second package for eight days without a search warrant would probably violate the reasonableness test for detention of mailed parcels, Arguelles failed to object at the trial level. In addition, Arguelles’ sentence was within the statutory limits regardless of whether she was convicted for possession of one or both of the packages. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Arguelles argues that the evidence was insufficient. The State introduced evidence that Arguelles expected the package, loaded the package into the trunk of the car and that her home contained similar packing material to that in the parcels. This was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could base its verdict. Issue 3: Circumstantial evidence instruction Arguelles argues that attempting to prove constructive possession of the marijuana by her requires a circumstantial evidence instruction since proof of constructive possession is by its very nature circumstantial. The existence of any direct evidence eliminates the need for a circumstantial evidence instruction. Evidence that Arguelles received the parcels and loaded one parcel in the trunk of a car she had been previously driving is sufficient direct evidence to eliminate the need for a circumstantial evidence instruction. Issue 4: Newly discovered evidence After the verdict was issued, Arguelles’ co-defendant offered evidence that she was completely innocent of the charges and never had any knowledge of the drugs in the parcels. Arguelles argues that if she had the opportunity to cross examine her co-defendant the additional evidence of her ignorance and non-involvement with the parcels would have come to light. A new trial is available if the appellant is able to prove the new evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence and the newly discovered evidence would probably change the results. Arguelles has not shown that all due diligence was used in attempting to obtain the evidence before trial. Had she requested to cross examine the co-defendant and been denied that opportunity, then possibly she could assert that she used all due diligence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
