Miller v. State
144 So. 3d 199
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Miller was indicted for selling 0.6 grams of cocaine in Lafayette County, Mississippi; jury convicted and he was sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 years.
- Controlled buy: confidential informant Justin Harris, equipped and paid by narcotics agents, purchased the substance from Miller; the transaction was recorded on video and corroborated Harris’s testimony.
- The crime-lab analysis identifying the substance as 0.6 grams of cocaine was performed by analyst Robert Reed; Reed was unavailable to testify at trial.
- Teresia Hickman, who served as the technical reviewer of Reed’s report, testified about the substance’s identity, composition, and weight based on her review.
- Miller moved in limine to exclude Hickman’s testimony, arguing a Sixth Amendment confrontation clause violation because she did not perform or observe the original test; the trial court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Miller's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation: whether technical reviewer may testify for primary analyst | Hickman, as reviewer, did not perform/observe test; admitting her testimony violated Miller’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the analyst | Reviewer had intimate involvement via amended technical review and could give an expert opinion based on that review | Court held reviewer testimony permitted; no confrontation clause violation |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Video and witness discrepancies undermined proof of sale | Harris’s testimony plus video corroboration sufficed | Evidence was sufficient to support conviction |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict was against overwhelming weight favoring innocence | No supporting legal argument or record citation; issue waived | Procedurally barred for lack of authority; not considered |
| Denial of cautionary "snitch" instruction (D-8) | Jury should have been cautioned to view Harris’s testimony with distrust due to favorable treatment | Jury was informed of informant’s cooperation/assistance and Harris was cross-examined; cautionary instruction not required | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying the instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Grim v. State, 102 So.3d 1073 (Miss. 2012) (supervisor/reviewer may testify in place of primary analyst if actively involved and has intimate knowledge)
- Jenkins v. State, 102 So.3d 1063 (Miss. 2012) (same principle permitting reviewer testimony for unavailable analyst)
- Webber v. State, 108 So.3d 930 (Miss. 2013) (cautionary informant instruction not required when jury is informed of pay/cooperation and cross-examination occurs)
- Whitlock v. State, 47 So.3d 668 (Miss. 2010) (a single witness’s testimony, even uncorroborated, can support a conviction)