I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - KA- 0 0 2 5 1 - S CT J AMESEWI

NG
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 22/ 2010 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. RO BERT W I LLI AM ELLI OTT COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CALHOUN COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: O FFI CE O F I N D I G EN T A PPEA LS BY: BENJ AM I N ALLE N SUBE R LESL I E LEE K E V I N L . H O WE 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 : W . G LEN N W A TTS DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY: BENJ AM I N F. CRE EKM ORE 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 - 10/ 14/ 2010 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. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. Jam es E w ing w as c o n v ict ed in C al ho un C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rtf o r th e sa le of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , i
. e. , hydr ocodone. J udge R obertW . E l l i otts ent ence d E w i ng t o f i f t een y e a rs w ith fiv e y e a rs s u sp e n d e d a n d fiv e y e a rs o n p o st-r e le a s e s u p e rv isio n . O n a p p e a l, E w i ng argues that the verdi ctw as aga i nstthe ove rw helm i ng w ei gh tof the ev i den ce. B ecause we f i n d th e v e r d i c twa s n o tc o n tr a ry t o th e o v e rwh e l mi n g we i g h to f th e e v i d e n c e , we a f

f i rm.

### Joe p assed aw ay after th is incid ent, b ut p rior to trial. 1 

### Mississip pi C od e Sectio n 4 1-2 9-1 39 (a)(1) (R ev. 2 00 9) states: 2 

### (a) Exc ept

as authori ze d by thi s article, it is unl awf ul f or any per son kn ow ing ly o r intention ally; (1) T o sell, barter, transfer, manu facture, distrib ute, disp ense or po ssess with int ent to sel l, bart er , trans fe r, manuf ac ture, dis tribut e or

dispens e, a c ontroll ed sub stance . . . . 2

F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2 . T in a W e st w o rk e d a s a c o n fi d en ti al i n form an t on b eh alf of the C alho u n C o u n ty Sher i f f’ s O f f i c e . O n Augus t30 , 20 07 , D e pu t i e s D e a n Po yn e ra nd W a yn e Pl un k s e a r c he d W es tand hervehi cl e. T he deput i es then pl ace d conce al ed audi o and vi deo eq uipm enton W es t , a nd g a ve h e rtw e nty do l l a r s t o bu y hy dr oc od on e . W e s tmeth e rf r i e nd Debr a and E w in g ’s b ro th e r, Jo e , at D e b ra ’s h o u se . W e st in d ica ted to th e d e p u ties th a t D e b ra w o u ld se ll 1 herthe pi l l s , butthey had t o w ai tf or E w i n g t o com e u nl ock the doort o the hous e. E w i ng
w a s D e b ra ’s b o y fr ie n d a t th e tim e in q u e s tio n . ¶3. O nce E w i ng arr i ved at the hous e, he cons ul t ed w i th hi s br other and D ebr a aboutthe
num be ro f

p i l l s t o s e l l W e s t . W e s tthe n f ol l owed Ew i ng i ns i de the h ome, w her e s he pur chas ed s i x pi l l s of

hydr ocodone f

r om E w i ng. E w i ng w as i ndi ct ed underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 29- 139( a) f

orthe tr ans f

erand s al e of

a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . 2 ¶4. A t tr i al , W es t t es t i f i ed f or the St at e and i dent i f

i ed E w i ng dur i ng her di r ectt es t i m ony as t he per s on fr om w hom she boughtt he hydr ocodone pi l l s . W es tadm i t t ed thats he gave the twe n ty d o l l a r s t o E wi n g i n e x c h a n g e f o rth e p i l l s . S h e a l s o c o n f i rme d th a tth e DVD,
r ecor ded on A ugus t30, 2007, acc ur at el y depi ct ed the contr ol l ed buy. O n cr os s - exami nat i on,

### 3

E w i ng’ s att orney pr es s ed W es taboutt o w hom s he had gi ven the tw enty dol l ar s . A gai n, W e st s a id sh e h a d g iv e n th e m o n e y to E w in g , an d late r re c a lle d , “ I d id n ’t g iv e m o n e y to D eb ra. I d idn ’tg ive th e m o n ey to D eb ra.” B u t aft er rep ea ted q u esti o n s from E w ing ’s att orney, W es t ’ s f

i nal r es pons e t o t he ques t i on “di dn’ tyou gi ve thatm oney you w er e f l as hi ng a ro u n d th e re o n the ca m e ra to D e b ra an d Jo e o u t th e re in th e c a r b e fo re y o u e v e r w e n t in to the hous e?” w as “I don’ tthi nk I di d. I don’ tknow
. ” ¶5 . T he St at e al s o cal l ed D eputy D ean Poy ne r . D e pu ty Po yn e rt e s t i f i e d tha the ha d
m oni t or ed the audi o r ecor di ng of the contr ol l ed buy fr om hi s car , and not ed thathe had
r ece i ved s i x pi l l s fr om W estaft erthe contr ol l ed buy had e nded. D eputy Poynerf ur ther t es t i f i ed thatthe M i s si ssi ppi C r i m e Labor at ory had t es t ed the pi l l s and had c oncl uded that they w er e hydr ocodone. T he pi l l s w er e admi t t ed i nt o evi dence , as w as t he D V D of the
c o n tr o lle d b u y . T h e S ta te p la y e d th e D V D fo r t h e ju ry . ¶6. E w i ng t es t i f

i ed, a nd deni ed s el l i ng the pi l l s t o W es t . E w i ng cl ai m ed thathe had gone t o the hous e on the day i n ques t i on o nly t o unl ock the doorf orD ebr a and J oe. E w i ng t est i fi ed thathe w as act i ng atthe d ir ec ti o n o f hi s brother, Joe, and that the p i l l s w ere al so J oe’ s . E w i ng f

ur thers t at ed thathe di d notr ece i ve the tw enty dol l ar s f r om W es t , and thathe th o u g h t s h e g a v e th e m o n e y to D e b ra a n d J o e b e fo re s h e e n te re d th e h o u s e . ¶7. T he D V D s how ed the f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) W es t ’ s arr i val atD ebr a’ s hous e; ( 2) W es t t al ki ng
w ith D e b ra a n d Jo e a b o u t b u y in g th e p ill s; (3 ) W e st, D e b ra , an d Jo e w a itin g o n E w in g to
arr i ve and unl ock the door ; ( 4) W es tand E w i ng t al ki ng abouthow m any pi l l s s he coul d buy for tw en ty d oll ars ; (5) E w i ng and Joe dis cussi ng ho w m any pil l s t o sel l W est ; (6) W est f o l l o wi n g Ewi n g i n t o th e ho me ; ( 7 ) Ewi n g a n d W e s te x c h a n g i n g s o me th i n g i n th e h o me

### V

a lm a in v. State , 5 So. 3d 1079, 1086 ( Mis s. 2009) ( ci ting To dd v. Sta te , 806 So. 3 

### 2d 1086, 1090 ( Mis s. 2001))
. Id . 4

### Id . ( ci ting King v. State85 7 S o. 2 d 7 02 , 73 1 (M iss. 20 03 )). 5 

### 4 w hi l e di s cus s i ng how m any pi l l s E w i ng had gi ven W es t ; and ( 8) W es tl eavi ng the home, but pr om i s i ng t o com e b ack and buy the r es tof the pi l l s w hen s he ca m e up w i th m or e money. T h e D V D d id n o t sh o w th e a c tu a l p ill s a n d m o n e y c h a n g e h a n d s fr o m E w in g to W e st,
a lth o u g h m o v e m e n t o f th e ir a rm s c o u ld b e s e e n w h ile W e st jo k e d a b o u t h o w m a n y p ill s E w in g h a d g iv e n h e r. ¶8 . T h e jury co n v ict ed E w ing for the sale an d tr an sfer o f h y d roc o d o n e. T h e tr ial co u rt sent enced E w i ng t o fi ft een y ears w i th fi ve y ears suspend ed an d fi ve y ears po st -r el ease supervi si on . E w i ng no w app eal s. DI S CU S S I ON ¶9. T he s ol e i s s ue E w i ng ra i s es on appea l i s t hatt he ver di ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng
w ei ghtof

the evi dence
. W hen re vi ew i ng a cl ai m thata convi ct i on i s agai ns tthe
overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence , thi s C our tm us tacc eptthe evi dence thats uppor t s the
v e rd ict a s tru e a n d “ w ill re v e rse o n ly w h e n c o n v in c e d th a t th e c irc u it co u rt h a s a b u se d its dis cret i on i n fai l i ng t o g ranta new tri al
. ” A new tr i al i s not pr op er unl ess “the v erdi cti s so 3 contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence thatt o al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” Fur ther , “ [ t ] her e i s a pr es um pt i on thatthe j udgm entof the tr i al 4
c o u rt is c o rre c t, an d th e b u rd e n is o n th e a p p e llan t to d e m o n s tr a te s o m e re v e rsib le e rro r to th is C o u rt .” 5

### 5

¶ 1 0 . M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 4 1 -2 9 -1 3 9 (a )(1 ) sta tes , in r e lev a n t p a rt: (a ) E x c e p t as a u th o riz e d b y th is a rticle , it is u n law fu l fo r a n y p e rso n k n o w in g ly o r in ten tio n a lly ; (1 ) T o se ll, b a rte r, tra n sfe r, m a n u fa c tu re , d istrib u te, d isp e n se o r p o ss e ss w ith i nt entt o sel l , bar t er , t r ans f er , m anuf

actur e, di s tr i but e ordi s pens e, a contr ol l ed s u b s ta n c e . . . . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 29- 139 ( R ev. 2009)
. E w i ng as s ert s thathe di d notknow i ngl y s el l or tr ans f erhydr ocodone t o W es t . E w i ng m ai nt ai ns thathe w entt o the hous e onl y t o unl ock the d o o r f o r D e b ra a n d J o e . H e f u rt h e r a rg u e s th a t W e s t’ s te s tim o n y a t tr ia l w a s n o t c re d ib le
. ¶11 . T he ev i den ce attri al incl ud ed the t est i m on y of W est , the con fi den t i al i nform ant. W est t es t i f i ed on di r ectthat : s he had c al l ed herf r i end D ebr a and a rr anged t o buy hydr ocodone; s he h a d b o u g h t six pill s of hy d roc o d o n e from E w ing an d no t D eb ra; sh e h ad give n th e tw e n ty dol l ar s t o E w i ng i n excha nge f orthe hydr ocodone; and s he i dent i f i ed E w i ng as the per s on
w i th w hom s he made the exc hange. W es tal s o con f i rm ed the ac cur acy a nd authent i ci ty of th e D V D in w h ic h s h e p a rt ic ip a te d
. ¶1 2. A ddi t i onal l y, t he St a t e p r od uc e d D e pu ty Poy ne r , w ho t es t i f i ed thatpr i ort o t he
c o n tro lled b u y , h e h a d se a rc h e d W e st a n d h e r v e h icle b e fo re h e h a d p lac e d c o n c e a led a u d io
a n d v id e o e q u ip m e n t o n W e st. D e p u ty P o y n e r sta ted th a t h e h a d li s te n e d to th e a u d io
recor ding as the tr an sac ti on betw een W estand E w i ng t oo k p l ace. D epu ty P oy ner al so t es t i f i ed thathe had r ecei ved si x pi l l s of hydr ocodone f

r om W es taf

t erthe exc hange ha d
en d ed , an d that h e h ad h ad the p il ls t ested b y the M issi ssipp i C ri m e L ab o ratory to m ak e su re th e p ills a c tu a lly w e re h y d ro c o d o n e . ¶13. E w i ng had an oppor tuni ty t o cont es t the evi dence pr es ent ed by the St at e and t es t i f i ed thathe had gone t o the ho use o nly t o unl ock the doorf orD ebr a and J oe. E w i ng f ur ther

### See Ga thright v. S tate , 38 0 S o. 2 d 1 27 6, 1 27 8 ( M is s. 19 80 ) (“[W]henevid ence is 6 

### conf li cting, thejur

y wil l bethesol e j udge of thecredibil it

y of wi tne ss es and the we ight and worth of their t es timony. This wis e rul e appl ie s with e qualforceto t he St at e’ s wi tne ss es and theappe ll ant ’s witnes se s, inc luding theappe ll ant him se lf .” ) Mo hr v. S

tate , 584 So. 2d 426, 431 ( Mis s. 1991). 7 

### Ga thright v. S

tate , 380 So. 2d 1276, 1278 ( Mis s. 1980). 8 

### Id . ( The Cour

t s tate d that “[ t] hey [ thejur y] may ac cept in part and re je ct in part the 9 

### evi denc e on be hal f of

theStateor on be hal f of

theac cus ed. ”) 6 tes tified th a t h e d id n o t ac c e p t th e tw e n ty d o llars fro m W e st. H e a lso sta ted th a t th e p ill s b e lo n g e d to Jo e , an d th a t h e h a d a c ted a t Jo e ’s d ire c tio n . E w in g ’s te stim o n y d ire c tly
co n tr ad ict ed the testi m o n y o f W est. B u t this co n fl ictm ere ly pre sen ted a n issue for the jury to re so lv e . In lig h t o f th e v e rd ict, it i s c lea r th a t th e ju ry , ac tin g w ith in its p u rv iew , ch o se to

6 di s cr edi tE w i ng’ s t es t i m ony. ¶14. Fi nal l y, the j ury vi ew ed the D V D and m ade i t s ow n concl us i ons . T he D V D s how ed W es tr epea t edl y as ki ng D ebr a, Joe, and Ew i ng aboutthe pi l l s and how m any s he coul d buy f ortw enty dol l ar s . I ti s cl earf r om the D V D thatW es thad a tw enty- do l l arbi l l i n herhand
w hen s he appr oache d E w i ng’ s carand aske d aboutbuyi ng t he pi l l s . A nd despi t e the f actthat nei therthe pi l l s northe money can be s een on the D V D w hen the exc hange t ook pl ace , bas ed on t he ou t com e of the tr i al , i ti s appar entthe j ury chos e t o bel i eve thatW es thanded Ew i ng tw enty dol l ar s and r ece i ved s i x pi l l s of hydr ocodone i n excha nge. ¶15. B eca us e the “j ury i s the s ol e j udge of the w ei ght of the evi dence and the cr edi bi l i ty of th e w itn e s s e s ,” th e y m a y “ a c c e p t th e te s tim o n y o f s o m e w itn e s s e s a n d re je c t th a t o f o th e rs .” 7 8 T he s ame goes f

ora ny e vi dence pr es ent ed by the St at e and the ac cus ed. H er e, the j ury gave 9
m o re w e ig h t to th e S tate ’s e v id e n c e a n d fo u n d th e S tate ’s w itn e ss e s to b e m o re c re d ib le. T h is

### Id . 10 

### 7 det erm i nat i on m us tnotbe di s turbed on appeal , as the “c r edi bi l i ty of w i tnes s es i s notf

orthe
re v ie w in g c o u rt .” 10 ¶ 1 6 . A fte r re v iew in g th e sta tu te u n d e r w h ich E w in g w a s c o n v icte d a n d a c c e p tin g a s tru e a ll th e e v id e n c e th a t su p p o rts th e v e rd ict, w e c a n n o t sa y th a t allo w in g th e v e rd ict to sta n d w o u ld
san cti o n u n co n scio n ab le i n justi ce . T h u s, the circu itco u rtd id n o t err i n d en y ing E w ing ’s
m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 7 . F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d , w e a ff ir m E w in g ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . ¶ 1 8 . CONVI CT I ON OF T HE S AL E OF A CONT ROLL ED S UB S TA NCE ( HYD RO CO DO NE ) AN D S E NT E NC E OF F I F TE EN ( 1 5 ) YE ARS I N T HE CU S TODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS W I TH F I VE ( 5 ) YE ARS S US P E ND E D, W I T H C ON DI T I ON S , AF F I RMED . AP P E L L AN T I S P LA CE D O N P O S T R E L E A S E S U P E R V I S I O N F O R A P E R I O D O F F I V E (5 ) Y E A R S . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI T C HE N S AN D C HA ND L E R, J J . , CO NC UR . GR AV E S , P . J . , NO T P A R T I C I P A T I N G .