250 So. 3d 477
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- Confidential informant Katy Young, supervised by Pearl PD, purchased suspected "molly" (ethylone/cathinone) and alprazolam (Xanax) from Hunter Sarrett in a controlled buy; a key-fob camera recorded audio/video of parts of the transaction.
- The officer conducting surveillance observed the exchange from a distance and did not see Young enter the house; Young surrendered the purchased drugs to police immediately after the buy.
- Lab analyst Allison Conville tested two capsules (found to contain ethylone, a substituted cathinone) and fourteen alprazolam tablets; she testified as an expert in drug identification.
- Sarrett was convicted of: Count I — sale of cathinone within 1,500 feet of a school; Count II — conspiracy to sell cathinone; Count III — sale of alprazolam within 1,500 feet of a school; Count IV — conspiracy to sell alprazolam. Sentences run concurrently.
- On appeal Sarrett raised: denial of motion in limine to exclude "other acts" statements on the recording; prosecutorial misconduct (references to “drops”); ineffective assistance for failure to object to authentication of exhibits; insufficiency of evidence for cathinone counts; and denial of post-trial motion as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Sarrett's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Admission of statements on recording as other acts | Statements about "been to ten people’s houses/ business is picking up" were unfair other-acts evidence and should be excluded under Rules 403/404 | Statements were part of the same transaction and necessary to tell a coherent story; court applied Rule 403 balancing | Court: No abuse of discretion; statements are part of the same transaction and admissible |
| 2) Prosecutorial misconduct (references to "drops") | References were inflammatory and prejudicial; judge should have intervened sua sponte | Remarks were within permissible argument scope; no contemporaneous objection and not so inflammatory to require sua sponte action | Court: Issue waived for failure to object; alternate review finds no undue prejudice |
| 3) Ineffective assistance for failing to object to authentication of Exhibits 4/12/13 | Counsel’s failure to object to authentication prejudiced trial | Record does not affirmatively show counsel was constitutionally ineffective on direct appeal; factual development needed | Court: Cannot resolve on direct appeal; claim more appropriate for post-conviction relief |
| 4) Sufficiency of evidence that substance was cathinone (Counts I & II) | Lab ID could be doubtful; therefore evidence insufficient to support convictions | Lab analyst identified ethylone (a substituted cathinone); evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution supports convictions | Court: Issue waived for failure to object at trial, and on merits evidence was sufficient |
| 5) Denial of post-trial motion as untimely | Motion for JNOV/new trial was given a hearing and should not have been denied solely as untimely | Motion filed more than 50 days after judgment (rule requires within 10 days); untimely filings are not tolled | Court: Motion untimely; hearing occurred but denial was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 991 So. 2d 593 (Miss. 2008) (standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Edwards v. State, 124 So. 3d 105 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (admission of interwoven acts to tell a complete story)
- Randolph v. State, 973 So. 2d 254 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for prejudice from improper argument)
- O'Connor v. State, 120 So. 3d 390 (Miss. 2013) (sua sponte intervention for inflammatory argument)
- Dartez v. State, 177 So. 3d 420 (Miss. 2015) (Strickland framework and direct-appeal limits for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Conwill v. State, 168 So. 3d 1080 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (timeliness rule for post-trial motions)