Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Malone v. State
Citations: 406 So. 2d 37; 1981 Miss. LEXIS 2289Docket: No. 52929
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; November 17, 1981; Mississippi; State Supreme Court
Defendant was indicted for the unlawful sale of amphetamines and was also charged as an habitual offender. The jury convicted him, leading to a sentencing hearing where he received a 20-year prison term and a $30,000 fine, with no eligibility for parole or probation. The sole error raised on appeal involves the admission of a uniform arrest ticket as evidence of a prior conviction to impeach the defendant's testimony. During cross-examination, the defendant claimed he had not received a formal uniform arrest citation and insisted that he only paid a fine for traffic violations. A rebuttal witness, the Mayor of Soso, introduced a uniform arrest ticket showing the defendant's prior offenses, including possession of a controlled substance. The Mayor could not confirm whether the defendant had posted bond or appeared in court for the charges. A conviction record for possession of a controlled substance was not presented, nor was a certified judgment of conviction. The charges against the defendant in the Town of Soso were likely resolved under section 21-23-17 of the Mississippi Code, which allows individuals charged with traffic violations to waive a trial and agree to a fine in advance, provided they are informed of their rights. This section permits prepayment of fines without court trials for traffic offenses but explicitly excludes charges such as public drunkenness or possession of a controlled substance from this procedure. The introduction of a uniform arrest ticket as evidence of the defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance was deemed erroneous, as it did not constitute valid evidence of such a conviction. Allowing this incompetent evidence to be presented was a reversible error because it significantly impacted the jury's assessment of the defendant's credibility. The case hinged on conflicting testimonies between the defendant and an undercover agent, Earl Plymale, who alleged he purchased drugs from the defendant. The improper introduction of the conviction evidence was particularly prejudicial, undermining the defendant's defense against the serious accusation of selling a controlled substance. The court declines to apply the harmless error rule in the case. The defendant questions the existence of the crime of possession of a controlled substance, but the court refrains from addressing this issue due to an inadequate record, suggesting it be reviewed by the trial court upon remand. The court cites section 21-23-7 of the Mississippi Code Annotated (1972), which details the responsibilities of municipal officials as ex-officio justices of the peace, including maintaining separate dockets for criminal matters. Upon retrial, if the state seeks to rely on the conviction for possession of a controlled substance in the Town of Soso, it must provide evidence clarifying whether the Mayor acted as a police justice or as an ex-officio justice of the peace, along with proper documentation of the judgment. The decision is reversed and remanded, with a note that section 21-23-17 was amended in 1979, changing the status of Municipal Court Judges regarding their roles as justices of the peace, and the relevant provisions cited are from the pre-amendment statute.