102 So. 3d 273
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jenkins was indicted for possession of cocaine (.1–<2 g) and amended to be charged as a habitual offender under 99-19-83 (Rev.2007).
- Circuit court granted amendment; trial began September 16, 2009; jury found Jenkins guilty and sentenced him to life in MDOC.
- Jan 27, 2007 Biloxi arrest after cocaine rocks were found in Jenkins’s mouth; he swallowed one rock; charged with possession and public intoxication.
- Officers overheard Jenkins’s remark about selling to the three Hispanic males; Jenkins waived Miranda rights after being brought to the department.
- Jenkins was originally indicted under 99-19-81; amended to 99-19-83; pretrial motions, including suppression of evidence, were denied.
- Jenkins filed JNOV and a new-trial motions; post-trial appeals followed; issues raised on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession | Jenkins: evidence cannot prove ≥ .1 g of cocaine. | State: expert testimony supports at least .1 g. | Sufficiency upheld; rational jury could find ≥ .1 g. |
| Admissibility of statement before Miranda | Jenkins: statement elicited in custody without Miranda warnings. | State: no interrogation; functional equivalence not present. | No abuse; statement admitted; issue without merit. |
| Confrontation rights and Gross testimony | Jenkins: Confrontation Clause violated by using Gross instead of Smith. | State: Brown/Mooneyham permit testing witness; Bullcoming not controlling here. | Issue waived; even if preserved, admissible; not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (test for legal sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (functional equivalent of interrogation)
- Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (limits on expert testimony in Confrontation context)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (confrontation issues with lab certificates)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (confrontation analysis with testimony about lab results)
- Mooneyham v. State, 842 So.2d 579 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (technology-reviewer testimony admissible to prove results)
- Moore v. State, 969 So.2d 153 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (credibility within the jury's purview)