Opinion ID: 1670017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant must request a continuance to avoid waiver of the issue.

Text: The record does not reflect that Kelly ever requested a continuance. In accordance with the Box guidelines, our inquiry ends here. This Court will not put the trial court in error for failing to grant relief which was never requested. By failing to request a continuance, Kelly waived any violation of Rule 4.06. Cole at 368. These assignments of error are without merit and are rejected. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II. The Trial Court Erred in Allowing, Over Objection, Certain Testimony Characterizing Certain Items as Those used by Drug Dealers in Making Rock Cocaine. Kelly cites no authority in support of this assignment of error. It is the duty of an appellant to provide authority in support of an assignment of error. Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss. 1988); Shive v. State, 507 So.2d 898 (Miss. 1987); Pate v. State, 419 So.2d 1324 (Miss. 1982). This Court has repeatedly said that we are under no obligation to consider assignments of error when no authority is cited. Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss. 1988), citing Clark v. State, 503 So.2d 277 (Miss. 1987); Kelly v. State, 463 So.2d 1070 (Miss. 1985); Redmond v. State, 457 So.2d 1344 (Miss. 1984). Because of the novelty of the events surrounding this assignment, we nevertheless consider it. David Jackson, a member of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, served the search warrant on Kelly and supervised the search of Kelly's bar. As a result of the search, several items were recovered which, according to Officer Jackson, could have been used in the manufacture of crack cocaine; these items were introduced into evidence by way of Jackson's testimony. Even though Kelly was not caught in the act of manufacturing crack cocaine or using any of the items in evidence, Jackson nevertheless characterized those items for the jury, thus: What you would do, a cocaine dealer would take the mirror and take the bottle of cocaine and put it on the mirror and cut it with the Inositol. He would take the razors and chop it up. The powdered cocaine a lot of times has a little bitty chunks in it. So what you do is you take the razor blade and you pour your cocaine out and chop it up. Then you take the Inositol and pour in with it and chop it up some more. Say you have one gram of cocaine that you had just purchased. You would take this Inositol and weigh out on the scales approximately another gram of Inositol, or whatever you think you can cut it with and still have a cocaine that you could sell. Say you bought an ounce, but I'm going to do it in grams. You have a gram of coke that you paid $100.00 for. You take that one gram and you mix a gram of Inositol with it. You have got two grams once you mix it together. So you have turned your $100.00 into a $200.00 profit. That's what you would do on the mirror with the razor blades. Then you would use the hanger and take spoons when you go to get your Inositol out, or take your spoon to dip your baking soda. You would take your powder cocaine, stick it in a jar, add a little baking soda to it, put a little water in, and take your coat hanger there with the cotton swab on it, dip it into a flammable substance such as rum  We always say rum because that's what a lot of people use. You can use rum, alcohol, listerine, mouthwash, or anything like that that's flammable. Then you would use that to heat it to get your cocaine to a rock form or crystal form. Then you would pour it back out on the mirror and cut it up into small pieces. Matchboxes are commonly used by cocaine dealers to store the rock cocaine in. (Emphasis added) Kelly was tried on a charge of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, not manufacture. The cocaine Kelly was charged with intending to deliver was in the form of rocks. Although Jackson was not qualified as an expert, he was allowed to explain what rock cocaine is and how it is made at  the beginning of his testimony, prior to the explanation set out above, apparently in an effort to explain to the jury what rock cocaine is and to present a rational and coherent story to the jury. See Brown v. State, 483 So.2d 328, 330 (Miss. 1986); Turner v. State, 478 So.2d 300, 301 (Miss. 1985); Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743, 759 (Miss. 1984). The witness Reddix testified in the middle of the State's case. She testified, under a continuing objection, that she had personally witnessed Kelly manufacture the rock cocaine. Her testimony corroborated the method outlined by Jackson in his testimony. We find no error in the initial explanation of rock cocaine that was offered by the State through the witness Jackson; such an explanation was helpful to the jury in understanding the charge. We find, and so hold, it was error to allow the testimony of Jackson, a non-expert, who characterized the use of the physical evidence in the manufacture of rock cocaine. However, after examination of the record as a whole, we find that such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 509, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1980-81, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rule 61, Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. IV. That the Verdict of the Jury in this Case of Guilty as Charged is Against the Overwhelming Weight of the Credible Believable Evidence. Kelly presented no evidence or testimony at his trial. His sole contention on this assignment is that the cross and re-cross examination of the witness Reddix contradicted the testimony of the other witnesses for the State. It is not the function of this Court to pass on the credibility of any witness; that job is left solely to the province of the jury. See Campbell v. State, 480 So.2d 1161, 1162 (Miss. 1985); Smith v. State, 463 So.2d 1102 (Miss. 1985); Campbell v. State, 278 So.2d 420 (Miss. 1973). We have scrutinized the evidence in this case and find that the evidence amply supports the jury's verdict. After reading the record and assignments with great care, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence of Kelly. Costs of appeal are assessed against the Appellant. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ., concur.