Lenoir v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00328-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00328-SCT ; 2002-CT-00328-SCT ; 2002-CT-00328-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-19-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute - Sufficiency of evidence - Constructive possession - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 703 Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-02-2000 Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge: Keith Starrett Disposition: POSSESSION OF AT LEAST 4.4 GRAMS OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE - SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TWENTYFOUR YEARS IN THE MDOC, THIS SENTENCE WILL RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO ANY OTHER SENTENCE GIVEN. District Attorney: J. Daniel Smith Case Number: 00-006KS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Andre Lenoir |
LESA HARRISON BAKER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN |
|
|
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 cocaine with intent to distribute - Sufficiency of evidence - Constructive possession - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 703 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Andre Lenoir was convicted of possession of at least 4.4 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to twenty-four years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Lenoir argues that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that he possessed any dominion and control over the controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt, because the vehicle did not belong to him nor to the driver and the substance was not readily visible to him as a passenger. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing that the drug involved was subject to the defendant’s dominion or control. Proximity is not, by itself, adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances. The evidence shows that Lenoir was a passenger in the vehicle; when the officer looked into the vehicle at the roadblock, the front seat was clean; when the officer approached the passenger side, Lenoir moved to the driver's seat, started the engine, and attempted to flee; that after Lenoir wrecked the vehicle, the officers found a white rock like substance scattered on the front seat; and that upon being asked whether he used cocaine, Lenoir stated that he was a user, not a seller. Accepting these facts as true, the jury could have reasonably found Lenoir to be in constructive possession of cocaine. Issue 2: Expert testimony Lenoir argues that the court erred in allowing the testimony of a witness from the Mississippi Crime Lab as to the report of another analyst who actually tested the substance in question. The court recognized the witness as an expert witness, who was an employee of the Mississippi Crime Lab at the time the test was performed, and that she had trained the former employee that performed the actual tests and supervised the former employee's work and determined that her testimony was admissible under M.R.E. 703 because it would be based on the machine's reading and the notes of the analyst. Such testimony has been held to be admissible under these circumstances in prior cases. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
