Hopkins v. State, 141 So. 3d 384

Undercover buy: on Dec. 11, 2009 a confidential informant (CI) purchased a $50 rock of crack cocaine from Hopkins’s residence at 224 Bowen St.; the CI returned with the rock and police recovered the prerecorded buy money from Hopkins’s pocket.
Police secured the house and, pursuant to a warrant, found additional items: two confirmed crack samples (one 0.1 g rock, one trace powder), a digital scale, packaging materials (sandwich bags), and large sums of cash (>$3,600 in bedroom, $500 on Hopkins).
Physical items linking Hopkins to the residence included a bank card and car title listing 224 Bowen St.; police records also listed that address for Hopkins.
Hopkins was indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and tried as a habitual offender; the jury convicted after the State presented only its case.
Pretrial, Hopkins moved to exclude prior convictions (sought to bar 2003 and earlier drug convictions); the court allowed evidence of the 2003 transfer conviction under a Rule 403 balancing and gave a limiting instruction.

Issue	Hopkins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — possession	Evidence did not show Hopkins possessed the drugs (others present; he did not own house)	CI buy, drugs in plain view, personal items tying Hopkins to address, buy money on Hopkins — supports constructive possession	Affirmed: sufficient evidence of constructive possession under totality of circumstances
Sufficiency — intent to distribute	Small quantity (.1 g + trace) insufficient to show intent; prior acts alone inadequate	Circumstantial proof (scale, packaging, buy money, prior drug conviction, CI sale) supports intent to distribute	Affirmed: totality of circumstances supports intent beyond speculation
Admission of prior-bad-acts / hearsay / Confrontation	CI statements and references to the undercover sale/hearsay violated Confrontation Clause and Rules 403/901; prior conviction references prejudiced Hopkins	Trial court limited testimony to why officers were at the residence, excluded CI’s hearsay specifics, admitted only the 2003 conviction after balancing; no tape admitted into evidence	Affirmed: trial court properly limited testimony, no Confrontation or authentication error, and probative value outweighed prejudice
Weight of the evidence / new trial	Verdict is against overwhelming weight; conviction rests on speculation and hearsay	Evidence is not so contrary to the weight of the evidence as to sanction injustice	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion denying new trial or JNOV

Stringfield v. State, 131 So.3d 1182 (Miss. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Knight v. State, 72 So.3d 1056 (Miss. 2011) (constructive possession and related principles)
Johnson v. State, 81 So.3d 1020 (Miss. 2011) (review of circumstantial evidence on intent)
Jowers v. State, 593 So.2d 46 (Miss. 1992) (small quantity alone may be insufficient to prove intent)
Holland v. State, 656 So.2d 1192 (Miss. 1995) (prior sales alone insufficient to prove intent)
Boyd v. State, 634 So.2d 113 (Miss. 1994) (surrounding circumstances can support intent despite small quantity)
Swington v. State, 742 So.2d 1106 (Miss. 1999) (jury may credit CI testimony and infer intent)
Swindle v. State, 502 So.2d 652 (Miss. 1987) (limits on admitting informant information: admissible to explain officer conduct)
Donerson v. State, 812 So.2d 1081 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (use of undercover buy evidence and limiting measures to reduce prejudice)
Palmer v. State, 939 So.2d 792 (Miss. 2006) (standards for motions for new trial and weighing evidence)