Taylor v. State
| Citation | 656 So.2d 104 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-KA-00676-SCT,91-KA-00676-SCT |
| Parties | Barry TAYLOR v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Minor F. Buchanan, Jackson, for appellant.
Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Wayne Snuggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Ellen Y. Dale, Ridgeland, for appellee.
En Banc.
BANKS, Justice, for the Court:
This is another drug case in which we are called upon to consider the sufficiency of the evidence on the question of intent. We are also asked to determine whether the brother of an assistant prosecutor for the district in question may survive a challenge for cause. We find the evidence of intent non-existent and that the challenge for cause should have been sustained. We find all other issues without merit and reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of possession of a controlled substance.
I.
On July 20, 1990, three members of the Jackson Police Department's street corner crack cocaine unit were on patrol in the Bailey Avenue and Mayes Street area. The area is known for heavy crack cocaine dealing. Officer Preston Carter was travelling west on Mayes Street from Bailey Avenue in an undercover car. Two of Carter's partners (Stewart Tharpe and Max Mayes) were following him in an unmarked vehicle.
As Carter neared Lampton Street, which intersects with Mayes, a brown Buick caught his eyes. Carter recognized the car as that of alleged drug dealer Roderick Russell, who was known for frequenting the area. When it occurred to Carter that a drug deal might be taking place, he radioed his partners and alerted them to watch the scene with him.
Carter testified that as he drove closer to the Buick, he saw Taylor standing at the front door of the passenger side of the vehicle with his left arm partially inside the window. His testimony was corroborated by Mayes and Tharpe. Mayes testified that after Carter radioed and told them to be on the look-out, he saw Taylor's hand extend into the front window of the passenger side of the Buick. Mayes also testified that Taylor had some money in his right hand. Tharpe testified that he was watching the scene because he saw Taylor standing at the front door of the passenger side of the Buick with his hand extended in the window, before Carter radioed.
As he moved closer to the Buick, Carter focused his attention on the car, its occupants, and the two males standing at the front doors of the car. In addition to Taylor, Carter saw McArthur Williams, a juvenile. Williams was seated on the front seat of the passenger side. Russell, the alleged drug dealer, was seated in the driver's seat and Melvin McLaurin was standing outside of the driver's door.
When Carter pulled up behind the Buick to the left, he jumped out of his car and ran to the driver's side of the car to detain McLaurin and Russell. As Carter approached the car, McLaurin stepped back, and Carter saw Russell stuff something between the seat and the door. Carter ordered Russell to grasp the steering wheel with both hands. Carter also saw McArthur Williams, who was seated on the passenger side of the front seat, throw something to the floor of the car.
Carter grabbed McLaurin, who was standing outside the driver's side of the car. McLaurin dropped a cigarette lighter and a single rock of crack cocaine on the ground. Carter later recovered a twenty dollar bill and an empty match box, which contained residue of procaine and cocaine from the driver's side of the car where Russell was seated. The officers also retrieved one rock of crack cocaine from the side of the car where Williams was seated.
While Carter was detaining McLaurin and Russell, his partners moved in on Taylor and Williams. As Tharpe exited the car, Taylor turned and looked back at him and then turned away from Tharpe and threw something under the car. Tharpe later got down on his knees and retrieved some white tissue which contained four rocks of crack cocaine. Twenty-six dollars, believed to belong to Taylor, was seized near the place where he was standing and Taylor's person.
On October 10, 1990, Barry Taylor was indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He was tried and found guilty as charged and sentenced to ten years imprisonment, with seven years suspended.
At trial, Carter and his partners described the way in which drug dealers sell crack cocaine on street corners in about twenty areas throughout Jackson. Generally, drug dealers stand on the corner with a small quantity of crack in their hands or in a small container. When a potential customer drives by, the dealer walks out to the curb and shows the customer what he has.
Carter testified that the activity surrounding the Buick on July 20, 1990, was consistent with that of drug dealers selling crack cocaine. However, there was no direct evidence that Taylor had sold or intended to sell crack cocaine on the day in question. Rather, the state relied on the circumstances surrounding Taylor's arrest to show that he intended to distribute the drug.
At the close of the state's case-in-chief, Taylor entered a motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that the state had failed to prove that Taylor had cocaine in his possession and intended to distribute it. The motion was denied.
As part of his defense, Taylor called McLaurin. During cross-examination, the state was allowed to introduce evidence of McLaurin's prior grand larceny conviction. Taylor also took the stand.
McLaurin testified that he was walking down Emerson Road when he saw Taylor's white Camaro. McLaurin flagged Taylor down and asked him for a ride home. Taylor, who was headed home to Clinton from his job at Adcock and Campbell, an asphalt company, told McLaurin to get in the car.
McLaurin testified that when Taylor turned on Mayes Street, he spotted Russell and hollered out of the window and asked him for a ride home. Taylor stopped his car. McLaurin got out. Taylor asked McLaurin if he had a light. McLaurin told Taylor "no" and went over to Russell's car and asked him if he had a light. Russell said "yes." McLaurin told Taylor to come and get the light. Taylor testified that he got out of his car and went to the passenger's side of Russell's car to get a light. As the young man, seated on the passenger side of the front seat was about to light his cigarette, Taylor said, the narcotics agents pulled up.
McLaurin and Taylor both testified that they did not see any drugs being handled near the Buick, nor did they see the police officers recover any crack cocaine. Although Taylor and McLaurin testified that Taylor was giving him a ride home, the state produced evidence that showed that the two men were travelling in a direction opposite to that of McLaurin's home at the time of their arrest.
Upon conviction, Taylor timely filed his notice of appeal to this Court and asserts error in the following particulars:
I.
The verdict of the jury is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence both as to the guilt for possession with intent and for not accepting the lesser included offense instruction of simply possession as shown by their verdict.
II.
The lower court erred in not striking for cause juror, Joseph C. Haynes, brother to Assistant District Attorney, Glenda Haynes, Esq.
III.
The lower court erred in granting state jury instruction No. 1.
IV.
The lower court erred in granting state jury instruction No. 3.
V.
The lower court erred in allowing the introduction of a prior grand larceny conviction of Melvin McLaurin.
VI.
The lower court erred in allowing the introduction of evidence over objection of Exhibit 2, 3 and 4.
VII.
The lower court erred in denying the defense's motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the state's case and in overruling the defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the trial.
VIII.
The lower court erred in disallowing the defense jury instruction No. 2.
IX.
The lower court erred in disallowing defense jury instruction No. 4.
II.
Taylor urges this Court to set aside the verdict of the jury and the sentence of the trial court as being against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In truth, Taylor argues that the evidence was insufficient that he possessed cocaine with intent to distribute.
When on appeal one convicted of a criminal offense challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence, our authority to interfere with the jury's verdict is quite limited. We proceed by considering all of the evidence--not just that supporting the case for the prosecution--in the light most consistent with the verdict. We give the prosecution the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. If the facts and inferences so considered point in favor of the accused with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, reversal and discharge are required. On the other hand, if there is in the record substantial evidence of such quality and weight that, having in mind the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof standard, reasonable and fairminded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, the verdict of guilty is thus placed beyond our authority to disturb.
McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 133-134 (Miss.1987) citing Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952, 956 (Miss.1985); May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1984).
The question here is whether the evidence sufficiently established that Taylor possessed cocaine with the intent to distribute it. Taylor relies on Stringfield v. State, 588 So.2d 438 (Miss.1991), in support of his contention that the evidence was insufficient. In Stringfield this Court held that proof of possession with an intent to distribute or sell should not be based solely upon surmise or suspicion.
There must be evidentiary facts which will rationally produce in the minds of jurors a certainty, a conviction beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did in actual fact intend to distribute or sell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. State
... ... 49. Cox now claims lack of impartiality was established because Number 66, juror number four, was a neighbor of the district attorney. Number 66 stated that he could be fair and impartial regardless of who was his neighbor. Number 66 was not challenged by Cox. 9 Cox cites Taylor v. State, 656 So.2d 104 (Miss.1995), but his reliance is misplaced. In Taylor, we held that a jury member should have been dismissed for being the brother (not neighbor) of the district attorney. Id. at 111. Cox's present claim of lack of impartiality as to Number 66 is unsupported by the ... ...
-
Davis v. State, 98-DR-00511-SCT.
...between the juror and the person in question, justifying striking the juror, was much closer than that of co-worker. See Taylor v. State, 656 So.2d 104 (Miss.1995)(juror was brother of assistant district attorney); Atkinson v. State, 371 So.2d 869 (Miss.1979)(juror had relative who was kill......
-
Fox v. State, No. 1999-KA-00186-SCT.
...case, this Court must view the surrounding circumstances in determining the sufficiency of the evidence of intent. Taylor v. State, 656 So.2d 104, 108 (Miss.1995); Stringfield v. State, 588 So.2d 438, 441 (Miss.1991). Here the quantity, the packaging, and the fact that there was testimony f......
-
James v. State, 96-KA-01058-COA.
...might have reached different conclusions, the verdict of guilty is thus placed beyond our authority to disturb. Taylor v. State, 656 So.2d 104, 107-08 (Miss.1995); see also McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 133-34 (Miss.1987) (citing Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952, 956 (Miss.1985); May v. State......