Miller v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00885-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-17-2008 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-26-2007 Appealed from: WINSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: Conviction of sale, transfer, delivery or distribution of cocaine, a schedule II controlled substance and sentence of twenty (20) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with conditions. Sentence imposed shall run consecutively to any sentence previously imposed. District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2006-20-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Silentro Miller a/k/a SELENTRO MILLER |
MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF INDIGENT
APPEALS
BY: LESLIE S. LEE |
|
|
| 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: | Selentro Miller was convicted of sale of cocaine. He was sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Miller argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of evidence, because the confidential informant’s testimony is not reliable as it conflicted with the agent’s testimony. Also, Miller argues that this conflicting testimony shows that the informant was not thoroughly searched, meaning he could have had drugs in his truck or on his person. The agent testified that it took a total of six to eight minutes to search the informant and his vehicle, and that he did not search the informant’s socks or shoes. The informant testified that the agents took twenty-five to-thirty minutes to search him and his vehicle, and that the agents searched his socks and shoes. This is simply an inconsistency in the testimony of two witnesses, and thus a matter for jury determination as to credibility. Miller argues that someone else present at the scene could have sold the informant the drugs, because the hands of the informant and Miller were not visible in the video. The jury reasonably could conclude from the totality of the credible evidence that since the informant entered the trailer with $40, and exited the trailer with crack cocaine and $10 in change, it was crack cocaine that Miller placed on the coffee table. Miller also argues that the informant’s testimony was not credible because of his prior criminal history. The jury was informed of the informant’s criminal history and thus had an opportunity to consider it in weighing what credibility to assign to his testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
