Anthony v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-KA-01004-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01004-COA ; 2010-CT-01004-SCT ; 2010-CT-01004-SCT ; 2010-CT-01004-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Date: 06-19-2012
Holding: The motion for rehearing is denied.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sale of cocaine - Limit on cross-examination - M.R.E. 609 - Peremptory challenges - Weight of evidence
Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J.
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-17-2010
Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court
Judge: Lester F. Williamson
Case Number: 715-09

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Steve Antonio Anthony








 

Appellee: State of Mississippi  

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 - Limit on cross-examination - M.R.E. 609 - Peremptory challenges - Weight of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Steve Anthony was convicted of the sale of cocaine and sentenced to sixty years without eligibility for probation or parole. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Limit on cross-examination Anthony argues the circuit court committed reversible error when it denied him the opportunity to confront the confidential informant about his prior felony charges on cross-examination. Anthony argues that under M.R.E. 609, the circuit court should have allowed him to cross-examine the witness on all of his prior arrests and convictions, rather than limiting the questions to the witness’s arrest for two counts of sale of a controlled substance in 2007. The circuit court did not hinder the Anthony’s ability to present to the jury that the witness was “working-off” charges as a confidential informant. Through the testimony presented at trial, the jury was made aware that the witness had a motive to work with the police and his previous felonies, specifically his arrest for two counts of sale of controlled substances in 2007. The additional arrests that Anthony sought to introduce lacked evidence of convictions and relation to the drug task force. Anthony did not present any evidence to the circuit court that the witness had been convicted of the remaining charges as required by Rule 609. Anthony also sought to introduce a conviction from 1993. At the time of trial, the 1993 conviction was seventeen years old; accordingly, his conviction was subject to the time limits of Rule 609(b). Anthony failed to meet both requirements of Rule 609(b). Anthony did not provide the State with advance, written notice of his intent to introduce the 1993 conviction, and Anthony did not meet the threshold burden of showing the probative value of the prior conviction. Issue 2: Peremptory challenges Anthony argues that the circuit court erred in refusing to grant two peremptory challenges of potential jurors. The State made a prima facie case that the peremptory challenges were based on race, as all three strikes were made against members of the same race. The circuit court found that the reasons for two peremptory challenges offered by defense counsel were not race neutral. The race-neutral reasons offered included not liking the color of one juror’s dress and potential better jurors further down the line. The evidence from the record supports the circuit court’s ruling on this issue. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Anthony argues that the jury’s verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because the only direct evidence tying him to the crime was the CI’s testimony. He argues that a paid confidential informant’s testimony should not suffice for conviction. Anthony’s argument that the testimony of a paid confidential informant cannot sustain a conviction is not supported by Mississippi law. The jury was fully aware that the witness was a confidential informant for the agents. In spite of this fact, the jury chose to find his testimony to be reliable.


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