Mills v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48089,48089 |
| Citation | 304 So.2d 651 |
| Parties | Veto MILLS v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
James B. Floyd, III, Tupelo, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Pete J. Cajoleas, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Veto Mills was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lee County for the delivery of 2.6 grams of marijuana. He was sentenced to serve 4 years in the State Penitentiary with one year suspended. From that conviction and sentence, he now appeals.
The State offered only one witness to prove the delivery of marijuana charged in the indictment. This witness was an agent for the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics. He testified that the defendant delivered a small quantity of marijuana to an informer who immediately handed it to him. Although the agent stated that the informer was present at the time of delivery, he was not identified by the State, nor was he called to testify on behalf of the State. The defendant and his brother denied that defendant delivered marijuana either to the informer or the agent.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred by allowing the agent to testify about an attempt to purchase phenobarbital and seconal from defendant and his brother.
On direct examination of the agent by the district attorney, he was asked if appellant had made any statement to him about drugs in Lee County. When defense counsel objected, the district attorney replied that:
We have to show intent, your Honor. It goes to show that the defendant knew what he was doing, he knew what the drug situation was and he knew that what he was doing was illegal and against the law and he had some knowledge that he had to do it under cover.
The objection was overruled, and on direct examination of the agent, the following transpired:
It depends on whether or not his brother was present at the time or not.
BY MR. BIGGERS:
Q. (Continuing) Mr. Anthony, for the present time we will just confine the testimony of just the defendant himself.
A. Sir, I can't distinguish, I can't say that one of them said one thing and one of them said the other, they were both talking.
Q. Were they both-at the times that you recollect, were they both present?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They were together?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was said in the defendant's presence either by him or his brother about their knowledge of drugs, the drug situation?
A. I attempted to set up a deal of a quantity of Phenobarbital and also some Seconal, I was attempting to set up a deal.
Q. Are these illegal drugs?
A. Yes, sir, they are, they are Schedule III drugs.
Q. When you say, 'set up a deal', what do you mean by that, Mr. anthony?
A. Talking about if they could get me some quantity of Phenobarbital if I wanted to purchase or a quantity of Seconal, a derivative of barbituric acid.
Defendant argues that the above testimony tended to prejudice the jury against him and prevented him from receiving a fair trial. In Sumrall v. State, 257 So.2d 853 (1972), the Court, speaking through Justice Inzer stated:
It is contended by the appellant that the admission of this evidence was highly prejudicial and served no other useful purpose than to prejudice the jury against the defendant. It is a well-settled general rule that the issue on a criminal trial should be single and that the testimony should be confined to that issue and on the trial for one offense the prosecution should not be allowed to aid the proof against the defendant by showing he committed other offenses, even though of a like nature. Cummings v. State, 219 So.2d 673 (Miss.1969); Ladnier v. State, 254 Miss. 469, 182 So.2d 389 (1966); Brown v. State, 224 Miss. 498, 80 So.2d 761 (1955); Pegram v. State, 223 Miss. 294, 78 So.2d 153 (1955); Floyd v. State, 166 Miss. 15, 148 So. 226 (1933).
There are well recognized exceptions to the foregoing rule which have been given due consideration, but it is our opinion that the evidence relative to the possession of marijuana by the defendant on the day after the alleged sale does not come within any of the exceptions. . . . (257 So.2d at 854).
The testimony quoted above tended to show that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity other than the crime for which he was indicted by showing his willingness to secure other controlled substances to sell to the agent. It was specifically directed toward defendant's involvement in the crime of conspiracy. Such testimony had no probative value on the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant as to the crime charged but only served to prejudice the jury. The introduction of this evidence requires a reversal of the case.
Defendant next contends that the court erred when it permitted the district attorney to cross-examine him about his work record for the five years previous to the trial. When the district attorney sought to question defendant about this matter, defense counsel objected, and stated, '. . . he is going back to when the boy was fourteen years of age and questioning him about his work record.' The district attorney, in the presence of the jury, responded to the objection by stating that the testimony showed defendant was trying to 'get up some deals' and he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. State
...he is on trial. Eubanks v. State, 419 So.2d 1330, 1331 (Miss.1982); Massey v. State, 393 So.2d 472, 474 (Miss.1981); Mills v. State, 304 So.2d 651, 653 (Miss.1974). In Sumrall v. State, 257 So.2d 853 (Miss.1972), the Court It is a well settled general rule that the issue on a criminal trial......
-
Neal v. State
... ... Mason v. State, 429 So.2d 569, 572-73 (Miss.1983); Gray v. State, 351 So.2d 1342 (Miss.1977); Mills v ... Page 759 ... State, 304 So.2d 651 (Miss.1974); Allison v. State, 274 So.2d 678 (Miss.1973). On the other hand, our law recognizes certain exceptions to the rule. Proof of another crime is admissible where the offense charged and that offered to be proved are so interrelated as to ... ...
-
Flowers v. State
...743, 758 (Miss.1984) (citing Mason v. State, 429 So.2d 569, 572-73 (Miss.1983); Gray v. State, 351 So.2d 1342 (Miss.1977); Mills v. State, 304 So.2d 651 (Miss.1974); Allison v. State, 274 So.2d 678 (Miss.1973)). "On the other hand, our law recognizes certain exceptions to the rule. Proof of......
-
Read v. State
...to know who he is. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957) .... (245 So.2d at 27). [Mills v. State, 304 So.2d 651, 654 (Miss.1974) informer should be disclosed was stated in Young v. State, 245 So.2d 26 (Miss.1971): It is clear from the record that the info......