Shirley Warren v. State of Mississippi
2016 Miss. LEXIS 137
| Miss. | 2016Background
- Shirley Warren visited Winston-Choctaw Regional Correctional Facility on June 9, 2012; corrections officers discovered a taped plastic bag of eight pills concealed in her waistband during a search.
- Warren told the warden the pills were Lortab and Xanax; laboratory testing confirmed four hydrocodone (Lortab) and four alprazolam (Xanax).
- A grand jury indicted Warren under Miss. Code § 47-5-198(1) for possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility; the indictment alleged possession of "a controlled substance" but did not identify the drug.
- Warren moved to dismiss the indictment and to suppress lab results, arguing lack of specificity and discovery/qualification defects; the trial court denied those motions.
- A jury convicted Warren; she was sentenced to seven years (four suspended) with five years probation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the indictment was defective for failing to identify the substance.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Warren's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of indictment under § 47-5-198(1) | Indictment is fatally defective because it did not identify the specific controlled substance, depriving her of notice and ability to prepare an authorized-possession defense | Statute punishes possession of "any controlled substance" and indictment tracked statutory language; identity is not an essential element and discovery provided substance identity | Indictment sufficient; identity of drug is not an essential element under § 47-5-198(1) and omission was not prejudicial |
| Suppression / discovery violation (lab accreditation, analyst credentials) | State failed to produce lab accreditation and analyst certifications; results therefore unreliable and should be suppressed | Requested materials were not within the scope of Rule 9.04(A) requests and Warren did not prove the State possessed and withheld favorable evidence | Denial of suppression affirmed; no Brady/mandatory-disclosure violation shown |
| Qualification of forensic analyst as expert | Analyst lacked formal certifications and lab accreditation; thus not qualified and his testimony should be excluded | Analyst had relevant education, training, experience, and had performed >25,000 tests; Rule 702 governs qualification | Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting analyst testimony under Rule 702 |
| Sufficiency and weight of evidence / post-trial motions | Evidence insufficient or against overwhelming weight | Physical concealment, Warren’s statement identifying pills, and lab confirmation supported conviction | Evidence sufficient for rational jury; verdict not against overwhelming weight; JNOV/new-trial denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Brawner v. State, 947 So.2d 254 (Miss. 2006) (indictment must give reasonable notice to prepare a defense)
- Brown v. State, 890 So.2d 901 (Miss. 2004) (notice and preparation principles for indictments)
- King v. State, 680 So.2d 1182 (Miss. 1996) (an indictment that tracks statutory language is generally sufficient)
- Watkins v. State, 101 So.3d 628 (Miss. 2012) (statute requiring identification of controlled substance where penalties/elements depend on drug type)
- Brewer v. State, 351 So.2d 535 (Miss. 1977) (indictment naming a non-controlled drug failed to state a crime)
- Copeland v. State, 423 So.2d 1333 (Miss. 1982) (indictment naming a substance not actually controlled is defective)
- Ramos v. State, 710 So.2d 380 (Miss. 1998) (prosecutors should make file materials available to defense)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s suppression of material favorable to accused violates due process)
- Galloway v. State, 122 So.3d 614 (Miss. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admitting expert testimony under Rule 702)