McCormick v. State, 47403
| Decision Date | 05 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 47403,47403 |
| Citation | 279 So.2d 596 |
| Parties | Thomas Lynn McCORMICK v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
J. Luther Austin, Laurel, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gilfoy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Appellant McCormick was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County for the sale of a controlled substance, cannabis sativa L., commonly known as marijuana. A sentence of eight years in the state penitentiary was imposed and he appeals to this Court. We affirm.
One Buckhault, a student at the University of Southern Mississippi, was the chief state witness. He was an intern or student in Law Enforcement with the Laurel Police Department where he had been assigned by the University as an undercover agent. He stated that on August 10, 1972, he purchased from appellant a lid of marijuana for the sum of $20, which funds had been supplied by the Narcotics Division. Buckhault stated that he made the purchase at 'Roosevelt's' place. A short time prior to the sale, while at Jude's Curb Market, he met a cooperating individual known only as 'Will', who introduced him to a third party. Apparently the third party, unidentified in the record, is the person who arranged for appellant to meet and deal with Buckhault. The men rode around Laurel discussing where marijuana might be obtained and returned to Roosevelt's. Allegedly the purchase was made later that night at Roosevelt's by Buckhault, who was dressed as a hippie, after being told by appellant to be there at 8:30.
The first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, which motion was grounded on the contention that the state had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We are of the opinion that there was adequate testimony to properly send the case to the jury, and to support the guilty verdict. The jury judges the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight and worth of their conflicting testimony. Saucier v. State, 259 So.2d 484, 486 (Miss.1972).
In his brief, appellant contends that appellant was entrapped. This point was not raised in the trial court. However, we point out that where criminal intent originates with the accused, and the state or law officers merely provide an opportunity and the means to consummate a law violation, such action does not constitute entrapment. Hogan v. State, 233 So.2d 786 (Miss.1970); Miller v. State, 234 So.2d 297 (Miss.1970). Here also, since appellant denies the act with which he is charged, he cannot be heard to argue entrapment. Hogan, supra, and Reeves v. State, 244 So.2d 5 (Miss.1971).
The next proposition is to the effect that the court should not have admitted the sample of marijuana into evidence for the reason that the chain of possession was not positively established. Buckhault delivered the substance to one McDonald, a law officer, who together with another officer, Smith, at the Laurel Police Department, wrapped and sealed the substance. The package containing the substance was initialed and dated by Buckhault, who at the trial identified his markings thereon. It was placed for mailing into a cigar box after being sealed with a particular type of 'sealing' tape. Said law officers mailed it to the crime lab in Miami, Florida by registered mail with return receipt requested. When the substance arrived at the lab in Miami, Florida, it was received by a clerk named Pike who placed same in a vault. Pike did not testify. There, an employee named Cooper took the sealed package from the vault. He appeared in court and testified that he removed the package and broke the seal himself. Being a qualified chemist, he was permitted to testify that he made examination and chemical analysis of the substance and that in fact it was marijuana. He testified that following his analysis he resealed the package with sealing tape and forwarded same back to the Laurel Police Department. The chemist, Cooper, while testifying, stated that he was the only person who 'had broken the seals on this box at any time.' He gave this testimony on the witness stand after being handed the box containing the substance while in the witness room waiting to testify.
From the evidence it appears to be undisputed that the package which contained the controlled substance in question was marked and sealed by a Laurel Police Department officer, McDonald, who testified that he did so. The seal was subsequently broken by Chemist Cooper in Miami, who resealed it before mailing it back to Laurel. Cooper, according to his uncontradicted testimony, was the only person who broke either of the two seals placed on the package containing the substance. This witness, Cooper, described the seals as being so made 'that if you try to remove one that they shred or come up in little pieces and as you can see it just doesn't do it, and so if somebody were to try to tamper with the box they would have to destroy the seals to do so.' Cooper said the substance was in the same condition as it was when he sealed it after his chemical analysis thereof. The testimony is clear that there had been no tampering with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sayre v. State, 57110
...388 So.2d 168 (Miss.1980); Landers v. State, 304 So.2d 641 (Miss.1974); Hamilton v. State, 295 So.2d 739 (Miss.1974); McCormick v. State, 279 So.2d 596 (Miss.1973); Hogan v. State, 233 So.2d 786 (Miss.1970); Accord, Mathews v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 883, 889, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 ......
-
Hopson v. State
...E.g., Howard, 507 So.2d at 62; Daniels, 422 So.2d at 291; Pace, 407 So.2d at 532; Landers v. State, 304 So.2d 641, 643; McCormick v. State, 279 So.2d 596, 597 (Miss.1973). The United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a defendant in a federal criminal prosecution who denies......
-
Scott v. State
...sound discretion of the trial court. Sims v. State, 313 So.2d 27 (Miss.1975); Ward v. State, 293 So.2d 419 (Miss.1974); McCormick v. State, 279 So.2d 596 (Miss.1973); and Young v. State, 245 So.2d 26 (Miss.1971). Carsley testified that the confidential informant was reliable and had furnish......
-
Kemp v. State
...Law enforcement officers though do not entrap a defendant, when they merely provide an opportunity to violate the law. McCormick v. State, 279 So.2d 596, 597 (Miss.1973), Hogan v. State, 233 So.2d 786, 788 (Miss.1970), McLendon v. State, 247 Miss. 510, 512, 153 So.2d 711, 712 (1963). Rather......