Marterius C. Sanders v. State of Mississippi, 228 So. 3d 888

Undercover CI James White, wearing audio-video equipment, purchased $200 worth of crack cocaine on Sept. 11, 2014; video shows a man (later identified as Marterius Sanders) hand White a small bag and shake his hand.
After the buy, White met Agent Chris Brown and, on camera, told Brown he bought the drugs from a man called “G” or “Greg.” White later was killed before trial.
Still photographs taken from the recording showed Sanders’ face and the hand-to-hand transfer; Officer J.B. Long identified Sanders from those photographs based on prior acquaintance.
Sanders testified he was visiting Fields and moved a bag for her, denied selling drugs or being called “G,” and said Fields, not he, gave the bag to the CI.
Trial court admitted the audio-video (including White’s on-camera statement identifying Sanders) and still photographs; jury convicted Sanders of transfer of a controlled substance and sentenced him as a nonviolent habitual offender to eight years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of CI’s on-camera statement (Confrontation Clause)	White’s statement identifying “G/Greg” was testimonial hearsay; its admission violated Sanders’s Sixth Amendment right because White was unavailable and Sanders had no prior chance to cross-examine.	The video and still images were probative; identification and transfer were supported by other evidence (photographs, visual footage, Officer Long’s ID), so any error was harmless.	Court: Admission violated Confrontation Clause (testimonial, no prior cross-examination) but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming and cumulative visual evidence; conviction affirmed.
Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object further / request mere-presence instruction)	Counsel failed to preserve objections to hearsay/irrelevant evidence and omitted a mere-presence jury instruction, prejudicing Sanders.	Record on direct appeal is inadequate to establish ineffective assistance of constitutional dimensions; such claims are better raised in post-conviction proceedings.	Court: Declined to decide on the merits; dismissed the ineffective-assistance claim without prejudice and preserved Sanders’s right to raise it on post-conviction review.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statement rule for Confrontation Clause)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishing testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (harmless-error standard for confrontation violations)
Johnson v. State, 155 So. 3d 733 (de novo review of Confrontation Clause objections)
Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676 (harmlessness when improperly admitted evidence is cumulative)
Corbin v. State, 74 So. 3d 333 (harmless-error framework for confrontation issues)
Smith v. State, 986 So. 2d 290 (application of Davis testimonial analysis)
Burdette v. State, 110 So. 3d 296 (cumulative-evidence harmlessness context)
Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776 (standards for raising ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)