Ward v. State, 47920
| Decision Date | 15 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47920,47920 |
| Citation | 293 So.2d 419 |
| Parties | Travis WARD v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Williams & Williams, Water Valley, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by William D. Boerner, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Appellant Travis Ward was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Grenada County of the unlawful sale of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to serve a term of four years in the State Penitentiary. From this conviction and sentence, he appeals. We affirm.
The evidence on behalf of the state established that on July 21, 1971, appellant sold six bottles of biphetamina, a type of amphetamine, which is a controlled substance, to Fred Sanders for $100. Sanders, an undercover agent for the state, testified that he was introduced to appellant by an unidentified cooperating individual who was present when the sale was consummated. During the cross examination of Sanders, counsel for appellant sought to have Sanders reveal the identity of the cooperating individual to which the state objected. Out of the hearing of the jury, the trial court inquired of counsel why the identity of the unidentified individual was vital to the defense, whereupon counsel stated:
If the Court please, we think we are entitled to know the name of this witness and to know whether or not he is a credible person. We think the defendant has the right to be confronted with witnesses against him and to deny this defendant this right and knowledge will deprive him of the right to cross examine this witness and perhaps other witnesses.
The district attorney insisted that it was important to the state to have the identity of this individual kept secret. Thereupon the court ruled that the witness would not be required to reveal the identity of the individual.
Ronnie White, a special investigator for the Mississippi Highway Patrol, was parked less than 100 yards from the place where the sale was made. He saw appellant get into the car with Sanders and the unidentified individual. He did not hear the conversation and did not see the sale consummated but did corroborate Sanders as to the meeting with appellant.
Appellant did not testify. The only evidence introduced in his behalf was a witness who testified that the pickup truck owned by appellant was of a different color than the one that the witness for the state testified appellant was driving on this occasion.
The principal error assigned, and the only one which merits discussion, is that the trial court was in error in failing to require the state to reveal the identity of the cooperating individual who set the stage, directly participated in and was an eye witness to the alleged sale. We recently addressed ourselves to this question in McCormick v. State, 279 So.2d 596 (Miss.1973), wherein we stated:
The next proposition is that the trial court erred in not requiring Laurel Police Officer McDonald to reveal the name of the informant whose information led to the obtaining of the evidence from appellant in the case before us. We hold that law officers have a privilege in this regard. Public interest requires that informants ought to be encouraged to transmit information about crime to law officers. Unless the anonymity of the informant is preserved, the transmission of information pertaining to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleming v. State
...and cross-examined him, which brought out the damning testimony in the presence of the jury. As this Court explained in Ward v. State, 293 So.2d 419, 421 (Miss.1974), confrontation and cross-examination are the very rights which require disclosure of material witnesses in the first place. F......
-
Corry v. State, 96-KA-01251-SCT
...require disclosure of material witnesses in the first place." Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 298 (Miss.1992) (citing Ward v. State, 293 So.2d 419, 421 (Miss.1974)); See also Miss. R.App. P. 10(b)(1). Defense counsel had an opportunity to confront and cross-exam whom he believed to be the ......
-
Scott v. State
...of the identity of the informer is within the 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 confi......
-
Smith v. State, 53564
...So.2d 373, 377 (Miss.1985); Sims v. State, 313 So.2d 27, 29 (Miss.1975); Hardy v. State, 313 So.2d 26, 27 (Miss.1975); Ward v. State, 293 So.2d 419, 421 (Miss.1974). In our previous opinion wherein we affirmed the trial court's denial of a new trial, we based our opinion on the overwhelming......