Opinion ID: 2543498
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the State presented competent proof of the alleged sale within 1,000 feet of a public park.[3]

Text: ¶ 21. Here, Long claims that the State did not present sufficient evidence that the alleged sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a public park. However, Long's claim is actually two-fold. Although Long contends that the State failed to present competent evidence that the sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a public park, the basis of that claim is that the testimony provided by the State's star witness was insufficient because he did not have personal knowledge that the sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a public park. Thus, Long claims that Rodgers cannot testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of the matter. M.R.E. 602. ¶ 22. In considering whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the jury's verdict, this Court must determine whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] accused committed the act charged and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction. Bush, 895 So.2d at 843 (quoting Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886, 889 (Miss.1968)). The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Bush, 895 So.2d at 843 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). ¶ 23. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, this Court finds that there was sufficient evidence to convict Long of selling a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public park. When asked what property borders the trailer park where Long sold Rodgers the Valium, Rodgers testified that the trailer park meets up right there at the city park, the public park that we have in Olive Branch. It's about 100 feet right behind [Long's] house. Rodgers further testified that the park is used for softball, fishing, walking, and just city park stuff. The State also published the surveillance video to the jury while Rodgers explained that the bright lights seen in the background were the lights from the city park's softball fields. He further explained that the line seen running perpendicular to the softball field lights was the fence that separates the trailer park and the city park ninety-six feet away from the sale location. ¶ 24. In light of these facts, we find that Rodgers did have personal knowledge that the park was, in fact, a public park and that Long sold Rodgers a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public park. Furthermore, this Court finds that any rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that all the elements had been met by the State in proving the sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public park. Accordingly, this Court finds Long's argument and assignment of error to be without merit.