Sisk v. State, 47746
| Decision Date | 25 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47746,47746 |
| Citation | 290 So.2d 608 |
| Parties | Kevin SISK v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Johnston, Pritchard & Wright, Pascagoula, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gilfoy, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Appellant Kevin Sisk was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the unlawful possession of marijuana. He was sentenced to serve three years in the State Penitentiary and fined $2,000. From this conviction and sentence he appeals. We reverse and render.
On March 1, 1973, Officers Wayne Howard and Jerry Willis of the Pascagoula Police Department searched the house located at 2119 Pecan Drive in the City of Pascagoula. They were armed with a search warrant, the validity of which was not questioned in the trial court, and it is not questioned on this appeal. When the officers arrived on the premises, they found Marvin Sisk and his wife Jean Sisk in possession of the premises. The appellant was not there. The officers found a brown bag containing 46 plastic bags of marijuana. They did not arrest the parties in possession of the premises but proceeded to a doctor's office about three-quarters of a mile away and arrested the appellant.
On the trial of the case Officer Howard testified over the objection of the appellant that on March 1, 1973, he had an informer go to the premises and purchase a lid of marijuana. He testified before the jury that the informer returned from the house with a lid of marijuana and told him that he bought the marijuana from the appellant. He also testified over the objection of the appellant that this informer was a reliable person, and as a result of this information, he made an affidavit for a search warrant. A search warrant was issued to search the premises. The affidavit and search warrant were introduced into evidence over the objection of the appellant. Appellant made no objections to the validity of the search but did object to the introduction of the affidavit and search warrant into evidence for the consideration by the jury for the reason that the information contained therein was hearsay and highly prjeudicial to the rights of the appellant. The affidavit described the premises to be searched and alleged that the place described was occupied and controlled by Marvin Sisk, Jean Sisk, and Kevin Sisk. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit contained the following:
5. The underlying facts and circumstances tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant are as follows: On 2-28-73, an informant personally known to affiant, came to him and advised that he, the informant had personally visited Kevin Sisk at his home 2119 Pecan Drive, in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and while personally being with Kevin, informant purchased (1) plastic bag of marijuana, approximately 1 ounce, and saw (50) more plastic bags of same in a brown suitcase. This informant is reliable and creditable because affiant has personally known him for (2) years. He has given truthful and reliable information in other drug cases. Informant has been regularly employed and has an acceptable credit rating. Said informant obtained this information from his personal association with Kevin Sisk. Kevin Sisk is personally known by affiant to push illegal drugs, and said, Kevin has been convicted on illegal drug sales. Therefore, affiant believes that he has sufficient grounds for search warrant.
Paragraph 5 of the search warrant contained the same statement of underlying facts and circumstances. Officer Howard said that when he went to the house, he asked Mr. Sisk which room was Kevin's and that appellant's father pointed out the room where the marijuana was found.
On cross examination, Officer Howard admitted that he did not know of his own knowledge whether appellant lived in the house searched or not. The only personal knowledge that he had that appellant had ever been in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleming v. State
...could and should have objected on grounds of hearsay, the right to confrontation, and the right to cross-examination. See Sisk v. State, 290 So.2d 608, 610 (Miss.1974) (conviction reversed where introduction of search warrant and affidavit "allowed the state to get into evidence hearsay sta......
-
Roach v. State
...of the accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal, absent some competent evidence connecting him with the contraband. Sisk v. State, 290 So.2d 608 (Miss.1974). Id. at ¶ 39. The State cites several facts from the record establishing exclusive control and possession of the contraband by Ro......
-
Esparaza v. State, 89-KA-0075
...State, 580 So.2d 1302, (Miss.1991); see also Hollingsworth v. State, 392 So.2d 515, 517-18 (Miss.1981). 1379 (Miss.1978); Sisk v. State, 290 So.2d 608, 610 (Miss.1974). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, this case presents evidence sufficient to overcome a motion f......
-
Vickery v. State
...of the accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal, absent some competent evidence connecting him with the contraband. Sisk v. State, 290 So.2d 608 (Miss.1974). Constructive possession is discussed in Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414 What constitutes a sufficient external relationship betwee......