I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - KA- 0 1 5 3 9 - S CT CORA ANN TURNER
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 31/ 2007 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. F RA NK G. VOL L OR COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ARREN COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : E RI N E . P RI DGE N AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : L ADONN A C . HOL L AND D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : G . G IL M O R E M A R T IN NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 02/ 19/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D L A M A R , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. C or a A nn T urneri s bef or e thi s C our tappea l i ng herconvi ct i on f orthe s al e of coca i ne. T u rn e r a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in a d m itt in g e v id e n c e , cla im in g th e S tate fa iled to e sta b lish c h a in o f c u sto d y . F in d in g n o e rro r, w e a ffirm th e trial c o u rt. FACTS ¶2. O n J ul y 17, 2007, a j ury f ound T urnergui l ty of

s el l i ng and del i ver i ng coca i ne t o a

### Turne r wa s indic te d and c onvic te d under Sec tion 41-29- 139(a) of theMis si ss ippi 1 

### Code. 2 conf i dent i al i nf

or m ant , J os eph A nthony K i r kl ey. K i r kl ey, a r ecove r i ng drug addi ct , w as 1
wo r k i n g wi th th e W a r r e n Co u n ty S h e r i f f’ s De p a r t me n ta s a c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f

o r ma n t . On S ep tem b er 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , M ike T rax ler, an inv esti g ator w ith the W arren C o u n ty S h eriff’s D ep artm en t, instructed K irk ley to att em p t t o p u rch ase n arc o ti cs from T u rne r an d h er b roth er, J oe J oe Turner. T raxl erand K i r kl ey meti n W arr en C ounty ata pr e- buy l ocat i on. T r axl er s ear ched K i r kl ey and hi s carf ord rugs pr i ort o K i r kl ey l eavi ng the pr e- buy l ocat i on. H ow ever, T raxl er t est i fi ed thathe did nots earch K i rkl ey’s M arl bo ro ci garet t e bo x for drug s. ¶3 . T r axl ert e s t i f

i e d tha th e g a ve Ki r kl e y $1 70 f orthe p ur chas e of

nar cot i cs , and he out f i t t ed K i r kl ey w i th a but t on- hol e camer a t hatw as al s o an audi o- vi deo r ecor der . T r axl er s t at ed thatK i r kl ey di d notha ve the abi l i ty t o s t op ors t artthe r ecor di ng. T r axl era l s o t es t i f i ed thathe w as unabl e t o m oni t orK i r kl ey’ s act i ons dur i ng the drug buy, a nd thathe di d nots ee K i r kl ey aga i n unt i l they metatthe pos t - buy l ocat i on. ¶4. A tthe pos t - buy l ocat i on, K i r kl ey gave T r axl erthe c r a c k c oc a i ne thathe had pur chas ed f or$50, and re turned $120, the r emai nderof the pur chas e money. K i r kl ey had tr ans por t ed the coca i ne i n a M ar l bor o ci gar ett e box, f r om w hi ch Tra xl ert ook the coc ai ne, r eturni ng the b o x to K irk ley. K irk ley in form ed T rax ler th at he h ad p u rch ase d the c o ca ine fro m T u rne r. ¶5. T r axl er then pl ace d the coca i ne i n a pl as t i c bag and tr ans por t ed the evidence t o t he Sher i f f’ s O f f i ce. T r axl ert es t i f

i ed thathe t ook the coca i ne t o the M i s s i s s i ppi Cri m e Lab and

### The e vide ncesubm is si on for m i s ge nerat ed by the l ab, and i t s hows “ who 2 

### relinquish ed cu stody o f the ev iden ce or who transp ortedit to the crime lab, date and time.” Turne r rai se s no que stions conc er ning t he c hain of cus tody of

thecoc aine a ft er 3 

### Traxle r r ec ei ved i t f

rom Kir kle y. 3 r ece i ved an e vi dence s ubm i s s i on f or m . T he evi dence s ubm i s s i on f or m w as ent er ed as an 2 exhi bi t , and i tver i f

i es thatM i ke Tra xl erdel i ver ed one he at - s eal ed pl as t i c bag c ont ai ni ng a ro c k -l ik e s u b s ta n c e t o th e la b o n S e p te m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , a t 1 0 :2 8 a .m . A rc h ie N ic h o ls , a f or ens i c s c i e nt i s tw i th the M i s s i s s i pp i Cr i me Lab or a t ory, t e s t i f i e d tha the a na l yz e d the
e v id e n c e , w h ich h e fo u n d to b e .3 g ra m s o f c o c a in e . N ich o ls’s tes t re su lts w e re se t fo rth in th e M iss iss ip p i C rim e L a b o ra to ry C e rtified R e p o rt. 3 ¶6. A ttr i al , the St at e i ntr oduced the vi deo of the drug buy. K i r kl ey’ s t es t i m ony w as us ed t o cl ar i f y conver s at i ons and expl ai n event s as they o ccurr ed on the vi deot ape. K i r kl ey con fi rm ed thatT raxler h ad g i ven him $1 70 “t o h i tano ther dealerand C ora A nn and j ust
w hoeverI coul d getthatday. ” K i r kl ey t es t i f i ed thathe w entt o J oe Joe’ s ho use fi r s t , and then he dr ove t o T urner ’ s hous e, w her e he pur chas ed tw o r ocks of coca i ne f

r om T urnerf

or $50. K i r kl ey s t at ed he putthe coc ai ne i n a ci gar ett e box, b ut he c ou l d notr emem beri f he p lace d the b o x in h is c o n so le or in fro n t of h is co n so le. K irk ley testi fi ed that after he left T urner ’ s hous e, he r eturned t o J oe J oe’ s hous e t o w ai tf oranotherdeal er . K i r kl ey s t at ed he l ef tJ oe J oe’ s hom e w hen the dea l erf ai l ed t o m eethi m , and he r eturned t o the pos t - buy lo c a tio n . K irk ley tes tified th a t h e m a in tain e d c o n tro l o v e r th e c o c a in e u n til h e g a v e it t o T rax ler.

### 4

¶7. T he video con t ai ns ab ou ta mi nut e of f oot age t aken w hen K i r kl ey r eturned t o J oe Joe’s ho use forthe secon d t i m e; the t ape then ab rupt l y end s. T raxl er expl ai ned that he f i rs t tr ans f err ed the r ecor di ng f

r om the butt on- hol e ca m er a t o a comput er , and then he burned the
r ecor di ng ont o a di s c. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, T r axl erexpl ai ned thathe “burned the s es s i on th a t s h o w e d th e b u y o n to a C D , a n d th e n e v e ry th in g e ls e w a s d is c a rd e d o ff [o f t h e c o m p u te r], and t he recor derw as er as ed and r eady t o go agai n. ” Tra xl erf ur thert es t i f

i ed thatt he
r emai ni ng por t i on of

the vi deo “ha d n othi ng to do w i th the pur chas e of the nar cot i cs f

r om C o ra T u rn e r.” ¶8. T he def

ens e al s o ques t i oned T r axl er about the por t i on of the vi deo i n w hi ch K i r kl ey interac ted w ith T u rne r. W h en a sk ed w h at T rax ler saw o n the v ideo , h e re p li ed , “I sa w C o ra T urners t andi ng ther e w i th he rs i de t o the i nf or m ant , t aki ng w hatappea r ed t o be a w hi t e r ock f r om herhand and handi ng i tt ow ar d t he i nf or m ant. . . . T he vi ew of the ca m er a i s har d, and y ’a ll w ill s e e th a t.” DI S CU S S I ON T h e so le i ssu e r a ised b y T u rn er is w h eth er th e T rial C o u rt a b u sed it s di s cre t i on i n al l ow i ng t he cocai ne and the M i s s i s s i ppi C ri m e L ab R eport i nt o evi dence. ¶9. T h is C o u rtrev iew s the tri al cou rt ’s adm i ssi bil i ty o f evi den ce un der the abu se- ofd is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . E lli s v . S ta te , 9 3 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 0 , 1 0 0 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ). F u rth e rm o re , this C o u rt w ill a ffi rm the tri al co u rt ’s ruli n g “‘[u]nless w e c an safe ly sa y that the tri al co u rt a b u se d its ju d icia l d isc re tio n in a llo w in g o r d isa llo w in g e v id e n c e so a s to p re ju d ice a p a rty

### 5

i n a ci vi l cas e, orthe ac cus ed i n a cr i m i nal cas e. ’ ” I d . ( quot i ng J

o n e s v. S ta te , 918 So. 2d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 )). ¶1 0. T ur nercon t e nd s the St a t e f a i l e d t o pr ov e tha tthe c oc a i ne t hatw as t es t ed at t he M i s s i s s i ppi Cri m e L ab w as the s ame drug pur chas ed f r om her . T her ef

or e, T urnerar gues t he tr i al courtcomm i t t ed pr ej udi ci al err ori n al l ow i ng the St at e t o ad m i ti nt o evi dence t he
coca i ne and M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Lab r eport . T urner ’ s ar gum enti s based on the f ol l ow i ng uncont es t ed fact s. F i r s t , T urneras s ert s T r axl erdi d nots ear ch the M ar l bor o ci gar ett e box pr i ort o K i r kl ey l eavi ng the pr e- buy l ocat i on. Second, T urnerar gues K i r kl ey di d not i m m edi a t e l y r e turn t o the p os t - bu y l oc a t i on a f t e rh e p ur c ha s e d the c oc a i ne b utwentt o t he h o m e o f “ a k n o w n d ru g d e a ler .” T h ird , T u rn e r c o n ten d s th e S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t fa iled to
m o n ito r o r su p e rv ise K irk le y a s th e tra n sa c tio n o c c u rre d . F in a lly , T u rn e r a ss e rts th e S tate f ai l ed t o pr oduce the ent i r e vi deo, w hi ch w oul d have a ccount ed f orK i r kl ey’ s act i vi t i es af t er he l ef therhous e. T urnera r gues thatthes e f act s c r eat e a r eas onabl e i nf er ence the evi dence
w as t amper ed w i th ors ubs t i tut ed. ¶11. W hi l e Turne rf

r ames he ras s i gnm entof e rr ora s a br eak i n the chai n of cus t ody, s he cl ear l y ar gues a ques t i on of i dent i f i cat i on w hi ch ar i s es unde rRul e 901( a) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence . Pur s uantt o R ul e 901( a) , “[ t ] he r equi r ementof authent i cat i on or i dent i f i cat i on a s a c ondi t i on pr ece dentt o a dm i s s i bi l i ty i s s at i s f i ed by e v ide n c e su

ffi c ien t to
s u p p o r ta f i n d i n gth a tth e ma t t e ri n q u e s t i o n is wh a tth e p r o p o n e n tc la i ms . ” M i s s . R . E vi d. 901(a ) ( emphasi s a dded) . T hi s Courtha s rul ed thatthe “pr oponentof the evi den ce m ust s how no r eas onabl e i nf er ence of m at er i al t amper i ng w i th, ors ubs t i tut i on of , the evi dence ;

### 6

h o w ev er, M issi ssip p i law h as n ev er req u ir ed a p rop o n en t of ev iden ce to p rod u ce ev ery handl erof

the evi dence . ” E lli

s , 9 3 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 0 5 . F u rth e rm o re , to d e ter m in e a b re a k in th e c h a in o f c u sto d y th e re m u st b e a n “ in d ica tio n o r re a so n a b le in fe re n c e o f p ro b a b le t a mper i ng wi th the e vi de nc e o rs ub s t i tut i on o f the evi dence . ” S

p a n n v. S ta te , 771 So. 2d 8 8 3 , 8 9 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ); c f. E lli s , 934 So. 2d at1005. ¶12. T hi s C our tanal yzed a s i m i l arcl ai m by a def endanti n B u tlerv. S ta te , 592 So. 2d 983, 984 ( M i s s . 1991) . I n B u tlerv. S ta te , th is C o u rt e x a m in e d th e a p p lica tio n o f R u le 9 0 1 (a ) to
a c h a in -o f- c u s to d y o b

je c tio n . I

d. T he def

endanti n B utlerc laim e d th e p ro se c u tio n fa iled to p r o v e th a tth e c o c a i n e o f f e r e d a ttr i a l wa s th e s a me c o c a i n e th a twa s p u r c h a s e d f r o m h i m. I d . T he def

endant ’ s cl ai m w as base d upon the f actt hata conf

i dent i al i nf

or m anthad bought
c o c a in e fr o m v a ri o u s p e rs o n s , in c lu d in g th e d e fe n d a n t, in o n e d a y . I d. ¶13. T he C our ti n B u tler exam i ned the langu age o f R ule 901 a nd found “R ule 901' s ph ras e

‘ s uppor ta f

i ndi ng’ i m por t s the s ame not i ons of l egal s uf f i ci ency tr i al c our t s c onf r ontw hen a convi ct ed def

endantm oves f

orj udgm entof

a cqui t t al notw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct . ” I d . at 98 5. T he C ou rtexp l ai ned the ap pli cat i on of R ule 901(a) as fol l ow s: [ R ul e] 901( a) al l ow [ s] r ece i ptof the coc ai ne as evi dence agai ns t[ the def endant ] i f

– and only i f – al l of

the evi dence , gi vi ng the pr os ecut i on the b e n e fit o f a ll fa v o ra b le in fe re n c e s th a t m a y re a so n a b ly b e d ra w n th e re fro m , is s uch thatr eas onabl e and f ai r - m i nded j ur or s , havi ng i n m i nd the beyond- ar eas onabl e- doubtbur den of pr oof s t andar d, i n the exer ci s e of i m par t i al ju d g m e n t, m a y h a v e re a c h e d d iffe re n t co n c lu sio n s w h e th e r [th e d e fe n d a n t] d e liv e re d itto [th e co n fid e n tial in fo rm a n t]. T he qu es t i on is notw hetherthe tr i alcour tf

i nds beyond a r eas onabl e doubt [ the def endant ] del i ver ed the c o c a in e , b u t w h e th e ra ju r y m a y s o fin d
. O nly i f the fact s and inf erences so c o n sid e re d p o in t in fa v o r o f th e a c c u s e d w ith su ffic ien t fo rc e th a t all r eas onabl e men w oul d have a r eas onabl e doubt , s houl d admi s s i on be deni ed.

### 7

I d. (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he C our tfurtherst at ed “[ w ] e pr et erm i tchai n of cus t ody obj ect i ons i n the f ace of . . . pr oper l y pr edi cat ed, di r ecti dent i f i cat i on t es t i m ony. ” I

d . at985- 86. ¶14. A ft er r evi ew i ng the evi dence , the C our ti n B u tler f ou nd the r e wer e “hol es ” i n t he p ro s e c u tio n ’s c a s e . I

d . a t 9 8 6 . N a m e ly , the C o u rt fo u n d th e re w a s “ u n c e rta in ty ” a s to
w hetherthe i nf

or m antw as sea r ched pr i ort o m aki ng t he drug buy, and ther e w as conf l i ct i ng te s tim o n y a s to w h ic h o ff ic e r r e c e iv e d th e c o c a in e fr o m th e in fo rm a n t. I d. T h e in fo rm a n t, h o w e v e r, tes tified a b o u t th e d ru g b u y , an d a n o ffic e r te stifie d a b o u t m o n ito rin g the sa le v ia
ra d io . I d. T his C ou rtruled that any dis crepancies i n the evi den ce w ere “s ubj ect s of cr ossexam i nati on and argum ent, bu t[ did] no tdetract fr om the factthat there w as ot herw i se evi dence t o sat i s f

y t he str i ctur es of

R ul e 901( a) . ” I

d . Ther ef or e, thi s Courthe l d the evi dence
w as admi s s i bl e and l egal l y s uf f i ci entt o s uppor ta f

i ndi ng thatthe def

endanthad s ol d coca i ne to a c o n fi d e n tia l in fo rm a n t. I d. ¶1 5 . T u rnin g to the ca se at ha n d , w e find the S tat e p u t f o rth “e v iden ce su ffi cien t t o su p p o rt a fi n d in g ” th a t K ir k le y h a d p u rc h a s e d th e c o c a in e fr o m T u rn e r. See M iss. R . E v id. 90 1 (a). T he tr i al courthe ar d t es t i m ony f r om Tr axl era nd K i r kl ey as t o the event s thatoccurr ed pr eb u y th ro u g h p o st-b u y . K irk ley tes tified th a t h e p u rc h a se d c o c a in e fro m T u rn e r, re tu rn e d to Jo e Jo e’s h o u se, and th en retu rne d t o th e p o st- b u y l o ca ti o n , de li v ering the c o ca ine to T rax ler. T r axl ert es t i f

i ed the vi deo s how s T urnerhandi ng a w hi t e s ubs t ance t o K i r kl ey and K i r kl ey r eturni ng t o J oe J oe’ s hous e. T r axl era nd K i r kl ey t es t i f i ed thatno f

ur therdrug buys occurr ed atJ oe Joe’ s hous e. Fur therm or e, thei rt es t i m ony w as corr obor at ed by the vi deo pl ayed a t tr i al . C l ear l y, the ques t i ons pos ed by T urnerw er e appr opr i at e and w er e the pr opers ubj ect

### 8

of cr os s - e xa mi na t i on a nd a r gu ment . I tw a s f orthe j ury t o d e t e r mi ne K i r kl e y’ s c r e di bi l i t y, as the cr edi bi l i ty of

a w i tnes s i s notf

ora r evi ew i ng court , buta ques t i on onl y f orthe j ur y. D o b y v. S ta te , 5 3 2 S o . 2 d 5 8 4 , 5 9 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). ¶16. Fur ther , T urnerf ai l ed t o putf

or th e vi dence of

pr obabl e i ns t ead of

pos s i bl e t amper i ng o r s u b s titu tio n o f e v id e n c e . See E lli s v . S ta te , 934 So. 2d 1000, 1005 ( M i s s . 2006) . T ur ner i ndi cat es thatcoca i ne coul d have p o ss ib ly been s t or ed i n t he ci gar ett e box orpur chas ed at Joe Joe T urner’ s hom e, bu tshe fai l ed to off er any p roof i n sup po rtof these m ere s ug gest i on s. “A m er e s ugges t i on thats ubs t i tut i on coul d pos s i bl y have occurr ed does notm eetthe bur den of s how i ng pr obabl e s ubs t i tut i on. ” I d . a t 1 0 0 6 . W e fin d th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in a d m itt in g th e c o c a in e o r th e lab re p o rt. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 7 . W e f

i n d th a t th e e v i d e n c e wa s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t th e j u ry ’ s v e r d i c t , a n d we af f i r m the convi ct i on and se nt ence of Cora A nn T urner . T he St at e s uf f i ci ent l y es t abl i s hed chai n of cus t ody, and t her ef

or e, prope r l y i ntr oduced the coca i ne and l ab r eporti nt o evi dence . Fur therm or e, T urnerf

ai l ed t o putf

or th a ny evi dence of

pr obabl e t amper i ng ors ubs t i tut i on of evi dence . T her ef

or e, the tr i al courtdi d nota bus e i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng evi dence of the coc ai ne. ¶ 1 8 . CO NVI CTI ON OF THE SALE OF CO CAI NE AND S ENTENCE OF THI RTY ( 3 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . W A LL ER , C . J. , C A R LSO N , P. J. , D I C K I N SO N , R A N D O LP H , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. GR AVES, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY .