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.
Lott v. State
Citations: 799 So. 2d 128; 2001 Miss. App. LEXIS 423; 2001 WL 1225022Docket: No. 1999-KA-01726-COA
Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; October 16, 2001; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
Johnnie Cain Lott was convicted of two counts of transferring morphine and hydrocodone within 1500 feet of a public park and sentenced to ten years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. Lott appealed, arguing that the Circuit Court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict based on claims of entrapment. On April 22, 1998, Lott met narcotics agent L.C. Cheeks and confidential informant Lewis Young at McNair Springs Park, where Lott sold two morphine tablets to Cheeks for $130. Following this, Lott indicated he could arrange a larger drug purchase. Lott contended that he was entrapped, claiming Young supplied the drugs and instructed him not to reveal this to Cheeks due to their friendship. During the trial, Lott's defense included testimony from his mother and a friend, who acknowledged Lott's drug use but denied knowledge of any drug sales. Lott admitted to previous drug sale indictments. Cheeks testified to witnessing Lott at another drug transaction. The court found no merit in Lott's appeal, affirming that entrapment is an affirmative defense requiring the defendant to prove they were induced to commit the crime and lacked predisposition to do so prior to interaction with government agents. The court concluded that Lott did not sufficiently demonstrate he was not predisposed to commit the offenses charged. In cases where a defendant claims that law enforcement officers supplied drugs for a transaction, prosecutors must present rebuttal evidence. The prosecution successfully countered Lott's assertion that a confidential informant was the supplier, highlighting Agent Cheeks' testimony and an audio recording of the transaction. Lott's statement about needing to "call his source" indicated the source's absence during the transaction. Additionally, evidence showed Lott's predisposition to drug crimes, including his previous presence at drug transactions and admissions of prior indictments for drug sales. Regarding motions for directed verdict and JNOV, the trial court reviews all credible evidence favoring the prosecution's case, only reversing if reasonable jurors could not find the defendant guilty based on the evidence presented. In this case, the court found sufficient evidence to uphold Lott's conviction and concluded he did not prove entrapment. The judgment from the Simpson County Circuit Court, convicting Lott of transferring morphine and hydrocodone within 1,500 feet of a public park, resulting in concurrent ten-year sentences, is affirmed. Costs are assigned to the appellant. The decision was supported by a majority of the justices, with one dissenting opinion.