Williams v. State, No. 55188
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Before PATTERSON; ROBERTSON; PATTERSON |
| Citation | 463 So.2d 1064 |
| Parties | Alfonso WILLIAMS and Larry Williams v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Docket Number | No. 55188 |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1985 |
Page 1064
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
Page 1065
Travis T. Vance, Jr., Eugene A. Perrier, Vance & Perrier, Vicksburg, for appellants.
Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Anita Mathews Stamps and DeWitt Allred, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Page 1066
Before PATTERSON, C.J., and DAN M. LEE and ROBERTSON, JJ.
ROBERTSON, Justice, for the Court:
I.
This case involves two brothers who were engaged in a small-time sale of an illegal controlled substance. On sharply conflicting evidence, the jury convicted and under our established rules applicable when we are considering on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support jury verdicts, we must affirm. In this sense, this case is unremarkable.
Here as in many other drug cases we find the State developing its case and presenting its evidence at trial through the use of a confidential informant. There is a disquieting feature of such activity in this case in that the informant, an ex-drug offender himself, was paid on a contingency fee basis. The potential for a miscarriage of justice in such cases is obvious.
Upon mature consideration of the matter, however, we have concluded that so long as the full facts and circumstances of the State's arrangement with its "bounty hunter" are disclosed to the jury, we will not disturb a subsequent conviction. Here as elsewhere the question of the credibility of witnesses is uniquely within the province of the jury. Because the circumstances involving the paid confidential informant here were submitted to the jury, we affirm.
II.
A.
Larry and Alfonso Williams have been convicted of the sale of an illegal controlled substance, to-wit: marijuana in violation of Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 41-29-139(a)(1) (Supp.1984). That statute makes it unlawful in this state for any person to "sell, barter, [or] transfer" marijuana.
At the outset we note that substantial knowing participation in the consummation of a sale or in arranging for the sale may render one guilty of the illegal sale of unlawful controlled substances within Section 41-29-139. One who aids and abets another in such a context is an accessory before the fact and is guilty as a principal. Sanders v. State, 439 So.2d 1271, 1275 (Miss.1983); McGowan v. State, 375 So.2d 987, 990 (Miss.1979); Landers v. State, 304 So.2d 641, 642 (Miss.1974).
Moreover, the mere fact that no profit has been earned on the sale avails defendant nothing. In Boone v. State, 291 So.2d 182 (Miss.1974), the Court noted
It is certainly true that the defendant did not realize a profit on the transaction but Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 41-29-139(c)(2) (1972) does not contemplate that the seller must realize a profit in order to be guilty of the sale of a controlled substance. The statute simply says that the crime occurs whenever a controlled substance is transferred or delivered in exchange for remuneration, whether in money or other consideration. 291 So.2d at 184.
B.
These principles well in mind, we consider the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the State. On February 11, 1983, narcotics agent Bill Mayo and paid confidential informant Billy Saulters asked Alfonso Williams and Larry Williams to locate for them a quarter pound of marijuana. Prior to that time, Saulters had made the acquaintance of Larry Williams. Larry had subsequently introduced Alfonso, his brother, to both Agent Mayo and the confidential informer Saulter.
On February 11, 1983, the Williams brothers met with Mayo and Saulter in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Based on previous discussions between Alfonso and Mayo, the purpose was to consummate the purchase of marijuana. The Williamses instructed Mayo and Saulters to follow them, each twosome in their respective automobiles.
A short time later, the cars stopped and Larry got out of Alfonso's car and got into the car with Agent Mayo. Alfonso was gone about twenty minutes and returned with an unidentified person, each in his respective car. During the interim, Larry
Page 1067
conferred with Mayo and Saulters and assured them of the quality and quantity of the anticipated marijuana and also quoted the price of $210.00 for a quarter pound of the substance.Upon Alfonso's return, Agent Mayo and Saulter got out and transacted the sale with Alfonso and the unidentified person. Agent Mayo took the money out of his pocket and handed it to Alfonso who appeared to count it and then threw it on the seat of his car. Alfonso's unidentified companion consequently handed him a brown bag containing the subject controlled substance. Agent Mayo and Saulter then proceeded back to their car, while Larry joined his brother Alfonso and the other unidentified person. The sales transaction was completed.
On the witness stand, Larry Williams acknowledged that all four men went in search of the subject drug and that the transaction was physically made between Mayo and Saulter, who paid consideration, and Alfonso and the unidentified individual, who gave them, in exchange, 2.8 ounces of marijuana. Alfonso Williams admitted that he had arranged the whole scenario.
C.
On June 5, 1983, the Grand Jury of Warren County returned an indictment charging Alfonso Williams and Larry Williams with the sale and transfer unto Bill Mayo of an illegal controlled substance, to-wit: 97 grams of marijuana for the sum of $190.00, in violation of Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 41-29-139 (1972).
The case was called for trial in the Circuit Court of Warren County, Mississippi, on June 28, 1983. The defense offered by the Williamses were that they had been engaged by Saulters to work for the State, that they indeed set up the sale in order to enable the authorities to "bust" the unidentified third person, and that Saulters had doublecrossed them by implicating them in an illegal controlled substances transaction.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galloway v. State, NO. 2010-DP-01927-SCT
...this Court and the United States Supreme Court have concluded that dismissal is the only remedy to a speedy-trial violation. Bailey, 463 So. 2d at 1064; Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439-40, 93 S. Ct. 2260, 2263, 37 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1973).20 A violation of the right to a speedy trial ......
-
Moffett v. State Of Miss., NO. 2008-DP-00541-SCT
...court's declination to order dismissal, the sole remedy available upon a finding that delays made a fair trial impossible. See Bailey, 463 So. 2d at 1064 (citing Strunk v. U.S., 412 U.S. 434, 93 S. Ct. 2260, 37 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1973)).III. The trial court erred in limiting the defense in the t......
-
Fleming v. State, No. 89-KA-276
...v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1984). The evidence which is consistent with the verdict must be accepted as true. Williams v. State, 463 So.2d 1064, 1067 (Miss.1984); Spikes v. State, 302 So.2d 250, 251 (Miss.1974). The State must also be given the benefit of all favorable inferences th......
-
Galloway v. State, No. 2010–DP–01927–SCT.
...this Court and the United States Supreme Court have concluded that dismissal is the only remedy to a speedy-trial violation. Bailey, 463 So.2d at 1064;Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439–40, 93 S.Ct. 2260, 2263, 37 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973).20 A violation of the right to a speedy trial canno......
-
Galloway v. State, NO. 2010-DP-01927-SCT
...this Court and the United States Supreme Court have concluded that dismissal is the only remedy to a speedy-trial violation. Bailey, 463 So. 2d at 1064; Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439-40, 93 S. Ct. 2260, 2263, 37 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1973).20 A violation of the right to a speedy trial ......
-
Moffett v. State Of Miss., NO. 2008-DP-00541-SCT
...court's declination to order dismissal, the sole remedy available upon a finding that delays made a fair trial impossible. See Bailey, 463 So. 2d at 1064 (citing Strunk v. U.S., 412 U.S. 434, 93 S. Ct. 2260, 37 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1973)).III. The trial court erred in limiting the defense in the t......
-
Fleming v. State, No. 89-KA-276
...v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1984). The evidence which is consistent with the verdict must be accepted as true. Williams v. State, 463 So.2d 1064, 1067 (Miss.1984); Spikes v. State, 302 So.2d 250, 251 (Miss.1974). The State must also be given the benefit of all favorable inferences th......
-
Galloway v. State, No. 2010–DP–01927–SCT.
...this Court and the United States Supreme Court have concluded that dismissal is the only remedy to a speedy-trial violation. Bailey, 463 So.2d at 1064;Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439–40, 93 S.Ct. 2260, 2263, 37 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973).20 A violation of the right to a speedy trial canno......