372 So.3d 980
Miss.2023Background
- Owner Brian Mangum discovered a burglary at his Magee, Mississippi property (reported Oct. 14, 2019); a trail camera later photographed a blue pickup (with a distinctive sticker and damaged door handle) on Oct. 15 and Oct. 18.
- Mangum identified appellant Charles McCollum and detained him until law enforcement arrived; items recovered from L&D Scrap matched Mangum’s missing property and scale tickets dated Oct. 15 bore McCollum’s name and ID.
- Investigator Wedgeworth ran LeadsOnline and NCIC searches, linked the tag to McCollum, and applied for a search warrant whose affidavit stated the vehicle “was on camera during the commission of the crime.”
- The warranted search of McCollum’s residence recovered multiple items Mangum identified as his.
- McCollum moved to suppress evidence from the search (motion not ruled on at trial), objected to testimony about LeadsOnline and an NCIC printout marked “Vehicle Used,” and moved for a mistrial after an L&D Scrap employee was inadvertently present despite sequestration.
- A Simpson County jury convicted McCollum of grand larceny; he appealed raising three issues: suppression, hearsay/admissibility, and mistrial. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McCollum) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Denial of motion to suppress/search-warrant validity | Affidavit and corroborating investigative facts supplied probable cause; vehicle identification and scrap-yard connections justified the warrant | Affidavit contained a false/misleading statement (“vehicle was on camera during the commission of the crime”) entitling McCollum to a Franks hearing and suppression | Majority: Issue procedurally barred (no ruling at trial) so reviewed for plain error; no plain error—no deliberate/reckless falsehood shown and probable cause supported on the whole; suppression denied and conviction affirmed |
| 2) Admissibility of LeadsOnline testimony and NCIC printout (with handwritten “Vehicle Used”) | Officer testimony about LeadsOnline and NCIC explained investigative steps and was admissible; NCIC was a business/government record used in investigation | LeadsOnline testimony and the NCIC notation were hearsay and prejudicial; LeadsOnline reliability not shown | Majority: LeadsOnline testimony admissible to explain investigative course; NCIC notation was hearsay but harmless/redundant; no reversal |
| 3) Motion for mistrial after sequestration violation (L&D employee present) | Presence was inadvertent; trial judge acted within discretion by excluding the witness from testifying | Presence violated sequestration and prejudiced the defense, warranting mistrial | Majority: Trial judge’s remedies discretionary; excluding the witness and denying mistrial was appropriate; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause to issue a warrant)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (preliminary-showing standard requiring a hearing when warrant affidavit contains deliberate or recklessly false statements)
- Petti v. State, 666 So. 2d 754 (Miss. 1995) (Mississippi application of Franks doctrine and guidance on search-warrant review)
- Pipkins v. State, 592 So. 2d 947 (Miss. 1991) (warrant must be voided where issuing magistrate was misled by false facts)
- Bevill v. State, 556 So. 2d 699 (Miss. 1990) (magistrate must carefully evaluate affidavit and may consider oral testimony when issuing a warrant)
- Eubanks v. State, 291 So. 3d 309 (Miss. 2020) (out-of-court statements may be admissible to explain an officer’s investigatory course or motivation)