Pearson v. State
64 So. 3d 569
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Pearson was convicted of selling cocaine within 1,500 feet of Summerall Park based on an undercover buy (Sept. 11, 2007) by a confidential informant with a hidden camera.
- The informant, Rutledge, was paid and accompanied by Officer Satcher; the cash and drugs were seized after the buy.
- The bag contained 0.2 gram of cocaine; the lab confirmed cocaine content.
- The indictment charged sale within 1,500 feet of a public park and, at trial, the jury found Pearson guilty of that charge.
- The trial court sentenced Pearson to 15 years, with 5 years suspended, 5 years of supervised probation, and a $5,000 fine.
- On appeal, Pearson challenged evidentiary admissibility, sufficiency of the evidence, cross-examination issues, and the park-proximity sentencing enhancement; the court affirmed the conviction but modified the charge to simply “sale of cocaine” where appropriate and addressed the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bag of cocaine was properly admitted | Pearson argues improper authentication/identification | State contends Rule 901(a) satisfied, with corroborating testimony | Admissible; discrepancies did not defeat authentication |
| Whether the evidence supports sale of cocaine | Sufficiency questioned due to discrepancy between “crack” vs. powder cocaine | Evidence, including video and lab results, supports sale | Sufficient evidence for sale of cocaine |
| Whether cross-examination of alibi testimony was proper | State shifted burden and commented on absence of alibi witness | Cross-examination valid to test credibility; no improper burden shift | Permissible credibility attack; not reversible error |
| Whether park proximity is an element or an enhancement and required proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Park proximity must be proven as an element because it affects offense | Park proximity is an enhancement, not an element; not required to prove beyond proof beyond reasonable doubt as to guilt | Park proximity is an enhancement; failure to prove it cannot alter the conviction, but it must be charged and proven if relied upon for enhanced punishment |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. State, 3 So.3d 742 (Miss.2009) (Rule 901(a) identification and weight of evidence considerations)
- Butler v. State, 592 So.2d 983 (Miss.1991) (Evidence sufficiency under Rule 901(a))
- Brown v. State, 995 So.2d 698 (Miss.2008) (Park-proximity sentencing enhancement requires jury proof when it doubles max)
- Wolverton v. State, 859 So.2d 1073 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (Park-proximity enhancement not element; affects sentence)
- Ross v. State, 603 So.2d 857 (Miss.1992) (Comment on absent alibi witness permissible based on availability and relationship)
- Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263 (Miss.1994) (Plain-error standard for evidentiary rulings)