Hosey v. State
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 348
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Hosey was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in a bifurcated proceeding that included habitual-offender sentencing.
- Video from a pole camera and undercover detectives showed Hosey engaging in hand-to-hand transactions and attempting to discard cocaine during pursuit.
- The State sought to introduce Hosey’s prior narcotics-conviction transfers to prove intent; Hosey moved in limine to exclude prior narcotics convictions.
- A court-ordered limiting instruction allowed some prior-transaction convictions to be admitted to show intent, while excluding other prior possessory convictions.
- An unexpected witness, Cassie Moore, appeared mid-trial; the court excluded her testimony as irrelevant and untimely.
- Hosey challenged the verdict form as incomplete regarding the specific intent, but the trial court’s instructions were not objected to at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Hosey sold/distributed drugs; video and testimony prove intent. | Evidence only shows possession, not intent to distribute. | Sufficient evidence supported possession with intent. |
| Jury verdict form clarity | Form C-5A established permissible verdict forms indicating possession with intent. | Form omits the specific intent term, rendering verdict ambiguous. | Procedural bar applies; no reversible error from form. |
| Exclusion of defense witness | Moore’s testimony could have provided additional corroboration. | Moore’s late-appearance and lack of specificity made testimony irrelevant and prejudicial. | Court acted within discretion; exclusion was proper. |
| Evidence of prior convictions | Prior narcotics-transfer convictions probative of intent to distribute. | Risk of prejudice; limiting instruction insufficient. | Evidence properly admitted with limiting instruction to show intent. |
| Opinion testimony by non-expert | Lay opinion supported investigative rationale and narrative. | Lay witness should not render conclusions about drug dealing. | Testimony was permissible lay opinion under Rule 701; not an error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (sufficiency standard in reviewing JNOV and directed-verdict challenges)
- Mitchell v. State, 754 So.2d 519 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (Rule 404(b) admissibility of prior drug-transaction evidence to show intent)
- Swington v. State, 742 So.2d 1106 (Miss. 1999) (prior-conviction evidence admissible for intent to distribute)
- Marbra v. State, 904 So.2d 1169 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (lay opinion limits and credibility determinations by jury)
- Boggan v. State, 894 So.2d 581 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (procedural bar for failure to object to jury instruction)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (proportionality review for habitual-offender sentences)