Opinion ID: 1685845
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was it error to allow the state to amend its proof and substitute a signed copy of the search warrant and affidavit as opposed to the unsigned copy admitted during the state's case?

Text: During the supression hearing the state introduced a copy of the affidavit for a search warrant which was presented to Justice Court Judge Mangum. Following the close of the state's case the defense moved for a directed verdict based on the fact that those copies did not contain Judge Mangum's signature or seal. On the day of trial, the court allowed the state to amend the affidavits for a search warrant so as to insert the original into the record which contained the judge's signature. The judge testified that he had signed those documents on October 6, 1982, the day they were issued. In Powell v. State, 355 So.2d 1378 (Miss. 1978), this Court wrote: The other proposition argued is that the search warrant was fatally defective because the Justice Court Judge failed to sign the jurat of the affidavit. We find no merit in this argument. Undisputed testimony shows that the affiant appeared before Judge Dale, who put him under oath and obtained the information contained in the underlying facts and circumstances of the affidavit. After giving that information to the judge under oath, Pickens signed the affidavit and Dale wrote the date and his title at the bottom. Pursuant to the affidavit, Dale then issued the search warrant for the residence rented by appellant. The search warrant bears Dale's signature, which by reference incorporates the content of the affidavit. 355 So.2d at 1380. In the instant case the undisputed testimony also showed that the affiants were put under oath and Judge Mangum elicited the information which appeared in the affidavit from them. Under the authority of Powell we hold that no error occurred when the trial court allowed the state the opportunity to amend its proof and present the original jurat as opposed to the defective copy. Based on all of the foregoing, we hereby affirm Jerry McCommon's conviction of possession of knowingly possessing more than one kilogram of marijuana. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., concurs in part. HAWKINS, J., and WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., specially concur. ROBERTSON, J., concurs.