Nix v. State
| Decision Date | 16 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 47335,47335 |
| Parties | Terry NIX v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Billy Joe Landrum, Ellisville, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Wayne Snuggs, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Convicted in the Circuit Court of Jones County of the sale of marijuana, Terry Nix was sentenced to serve ten years in the state penitentiary.
On appeal to this Court, defendant contends that the marijuana was not properly introduced into evidence. This question has two points of inquiry.
It is first contended that the marijuana itself was not introduced into evidence with the container. The undercover agent who had made the purchase from defendant was handed a matchbox and an envelope which he identified. The witness explained that the matchbox was the one containing the marijuana he had purchased from the defendant. After the purchase he had put his initials and the date on the matchbox, sealed it, and placed it in an envelope. While on the stand the witness was asked to open the matchbox, and he did, and upon being asked what was in the box, he answered that it contained a green leafy substance. The prosecutor then asked the witness sufficient questions to identify the substance and the envelope in which the box was contained and the box and envelope were marked for identification. Thereafter, when the toxicologist was introduced, he identified the box and testified that he had made tests and that the box contained marijuana. The prosecuting attorney then stated that he desired 'to introduce both the matchbox and the envelope as exhibits into evidence.' Defendant contends that since the leafy substance, the marijuana, was not mentioned when the matchbox and the envelope were introduced into evidence that the marijuana was never introduced. We find no merit in this contention. The record does not reveal that the marijuana was removed from the matchbox after the exhibits were identified in court, and it follows that when the box was introduced in evidence the marijuana was also introduced. It is not contended that the marijuana was removed from the box after the box was marked for identification.
The second point of inquiry with reference to the introduction of the marijuana is whether there was such a break in the chain of custody between the time the marijuana was received by the undercover agent and the time it was offered into evidence as to render the marijuana inadmissible. The undercover agent testified that after purchasing the marijuana from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. State
...with the evidence or substitution of the evidence." 274 So.2d at 143. Notwithstanding a "break" in the chain of custody, in Nix v. State, 276 So.2d 652 (Miss.1973), this Court held that the admissibility of evidence was: (W)ithin the sound discretion of the trial judge, and unless this judi......
-
Smith v. State
...will not be disturbed unless there appears to be an abuse of discretion." Nalls, 651 So.2d at 1077; Wells, 604 So.2d at 277; Nix v. State, 276 So.2d 652 (Miss.1973). s 101. The record reflects that the State sufficiently set out the chains of custody, and there is no evidence in this case t......
-
Smith v. State, 93-DP-00821-SCT.
...will not be disturbed unless there appears to be an abuse of discretion." Nalls, 651 So.2d at 1077; Wells, 604 So.2d at 277; Nix v. State, 276 So.2d 652 (Miss. 1973). s 157. The record reflects that the State sufficiently set out the chains of custody, and there is no evidence in this case ......
-
Burns v. State
...this Court will not reverse the rulings of the trial court." Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308, 312 (Miss.1984) (quoting Nix v. State, 276 So.2d 652, 653 (Miss.1973)). Hearsay ¶ 70. Finally, Burns claims that the content of the letters was hearsay not within any recognized exception. Burns cl......