Hill v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01210-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01210-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-28-2003 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession & Sale of cocaine - Illegal search - Probable cause - Cautionary instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Disclosure of informant’s identity - Separate crime - Illegal sentence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: King, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-13-2002 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: George B. Ready Disposition: CONVICTION OF COUNT I, POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS, AND COUNT II, SALE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC. SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY TO BE FOLLOWED BY A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION. District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CV2002-182RD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Corwin T. Hill |
WANDA TURNER-LEE ABIOTO |
||
| 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 & Sale of cocaine - Illegal search - Probable cause - Cautionary instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Disclosure of informant’s identity - Separate crime - Illegal sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Corwin Hill was convicted of both possession and sale of a controlled substance. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Illegal search Hill argues that the collection of cocaine from the front seat of his car was an illegal search and seizure, because the agent did not have probable cause. A police officer may approach an individual for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior, even in the absence of probable cause to arrest. Given the information available to the agent, his decision to stop and investigate was reasonable. Hill was parked on the side of the road, in a particular car and in a specific neighborhood, all of which was consistent with the tips the agent had received of Hill's method of selling drugs. Nor was there any immediately apparent reason for Hill's presence there or his decision to pull away once the agent had activated his blue lights. The agent did not discover the cocaine by exceeding the scope of the permissible search of Hill's car. He discovered it dusted on the seat of the car. Therefore, the evidence was properly seized. Issue 2: Cautionary instruction Hill argues that he was prejudiced by the court's refusal to grant his proffered instruction addressing the possible bias, prejudice or lack of veracity of a witness. Cautionary instructions may be given when the State relies upon the testimony of a co-conspirator or accomplice. The instruction at issue bears little resemblance to a cautionary instruction. It requires the jury to severely limit its use of testimony by anyone who may conceivably have an interest in the outcome of the trial. That is not the proper use of a cautionary instruction. In addition, Hill was granted an opportunity in which to locate an adequate substitute which he failed to do. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Hill argues that the evidence is insufficient, because his accomplice’s testimony was deficient because, as an accomplice, it required corroboration and was seriously and substantially impeached at trial; the audiotape made by narcotics agents of the buy was incomprehensible and the videotape did not show the appellant; the agent's in-court statement that he recognized Hill’s voice at the time of the buy was not sufficient to uphold the conviction; and the failure to immediately arrest Hill at the time of the taped drug sale casts doubt upon the narcotics agents' testimony that Hill was considered a major drug dealer in the area. The State supplied evidence of cocaine in Hill's car, resulting in the arrest and conviction for possession of a controlled substance, and the taped sale of cocaine by Hill to another. The evidence that was submitted was more than sufficient to sustain the conviction. Issue 4: Disclosure of informant’s identity Hill argues that he was prejudiced by the court allowing testimony by law enforcement as to the substance of the tips by community members that Hill was dealing drugs in the neighborhood. To the extent necessary to show why an officer acted as he did, an informant's tip is admissible. Here, the agent was not offering this information for its truth but as the background basis for his own actions that day. None of the undisclosed informants were material witnesses to the crimes with which Hill was charged. Therefore, disclosure was subject to the court's discretion. Issue 5: Separate crime Hill argues that the court improperly allowed evidence of a separate and unrelated crime to be introduced to the jury. The testimony indicates a plan by authorities left unrealized. No crime occurred, separate and unrelated or otherwise. Hill was never questioned, detained, arrested or charged as a result of the abandoned idea. Therefore any alleged error on this ground is groundless. Issue 6: Plain error Hill was sentenced to a term of fifteen years' imprisonment to eventually be followed by fifteen years of post-release supervision. By statute, the maximum amount of time a defendant may be placed under post-release supervision is five years. Because the imposition of a fifteen-year term is in clear violation of statute, the case is reversed and remanded for the sole purpose of entering a correct order with respect to the post-release supervision portion of the sentence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
