Nathaniel Burnett v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-KA-01968-COA
NATHANIEL BURNETT
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
10/23/2002
HON. LEE J. HOWARD
OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PEARSON LIDDELL
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
FORREST ALLGOOD
CRIMINAL - FELONY
GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF COCAINE; 6
YEAR SENTENCE WITH THE MDOC
AFFIRMED - 12/16/2003
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., MYERS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
SOUTHWICK, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
A jury convicted Nathaniel Burnett of possession of cocaine. On appeal he argues that the trial
court should have suppressed certain evidence, should not have admitted evidence about another offense,
and should have entered a directed verdict. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
On June 1, 2000, Nathaniel Burnett was driving at a high rate of speed in Oktibbeha County. He
was pursued by Deputy Sheriff Roy Moore in a marked patrol car. Moore had been parked in a driveway
alongside the road in order to investigate complaints about speeders. Officer Moore determined that
Burnett's car was traveling more than the posted 45 miles per hour speed limit. Burnett refused to stop his
car despite the pursuing marked law enforcement vehicle. At times Burnett exceeded 100 miles per hour
in his efforts to escape.
¶3.
Among the observed traffic offenses, Burnett was speeding and driving recklessly by weaving
around equipment at a road construction area. It was at the construction location that Burnett finally
stopped. After having Burnett's driver's license checked at the sheriff's department, the officer learned of
an outstanding warrant for Burnett's arrest for aggravated assault. He was arrested.
¶4.
During the search of Burnett incident to the arrest, a plastic medicine bottle in the waistband of his
pants was found. Later scientific testing revealed that the bottle contained cocaine.
¶5.
Burnett was found guilty of possession of cocaine. This is his appeal.
DISCUSSION
Issue 1: Motion to suppress the evidence
¶6.
Burnett claims that the medicine bottle found on him should have been suppressed as the product
of an illegal traffic stop. A law enforcement officer has the authority to stop a motorist if the officer has
probable cause to believe that the person is committing a traffic offense. Whren v. United States, 517
U.S. 806, 810 (1996) (proper to stop vehicle that was speeding). That Burnett was speeding was Officer
Moore's reasonable conclusion based on what he observed before beginning the chase. He jokingly
testified that, as Burnett went by, he thought a jet plane had passed. Moore pursued him, and the speeding
2
continued and reckless driving began. That is probable cause to believe that traffic offenses were being
committed in the officer's presence.
Issue 2: Introduction of felony warrant to explain defendant's arrest
¶7.
The officer testified that after obtaining Burnett's driver's license, the officer went back to his car
to call the sheriff's department and have a check performed on the license. He learned from that about an
outstanding warrant for Burnett's arrest. He did not state the crime for which the warrant was issued.
Burnett says that this was improper evidence of other bad acts.
¶8.
Evidence that reveals other crimes may be presented in order to tell a rational and clear story of
what happened if that is necessary to present the full story. Brown v. State, 483 So. 2d 328, 330 (Miss.
1986). In order to make a well informed decision regarding Burnett's guilt, the jury needed to understand
the circumstances surrounding the search that discovered the cocaine. The trial court found that the
information regarding the existing warrant was necessary to achieve this end.
¶9.
The jury was made aware of a warrant for Burnett's arrest, but jurors were not informed of the
specific reason for the warrant. This was an appropriate balancing of the probative value of the information
and the possibly unfair prejudice that could result from it. M.R.E. 403. There was no error in allowing the
jurors to learn that a previous arrest warrant was discovered.
Issue 3: Directed verdict
¶10.
Burnett challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. At the close of the State's case in chief, Burnett
moved for a directed verdict.
¶11.
Our appellate review of this issue causes us to examine all the evidence and any inferences
supportive of guilt in the light most favorable to the State. McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss.
3
1993). The trial court's decision will be reversed only, if under such review, we find that no reasonable and
fair minded juror could find the defendant guilty. Id.
¶12.
Officer Moore had a reasonable basis to believe that Burnett was speeding when he started pursing
him. Burnett was able to see the blue lights and hear the siren, yet he continued to drive at a high rate of
speed and drive recklessly while refusing to stop. Officer Moore lawfully arrested Burnett when he
searched him and found cocaine. This was sufficient proof.
4. Venue
¶13.
Burnett also claims on appeal that he was prosecuted in the wrong county. By statute, the
jurisdiction of all offenses is in the county where the crime was committed. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-11-3(1)
(Supp. 2003). The pursuit started in Oktibbeha County and ended in Lowndes County. Burnett argues
that the case should have been tried in Lowndes County.
¶14.
Burnett raises this issue for the first time on appeal after never challenging it at trial. Venue can be
waived. Here, it was. Williams v. United States, 582 F.2d 1039, 1041 (6th Cir. 1978) (venue is "a
privilege granted to the accused rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite, a conclusion which is consistent
with the overwhelming case law holding that improper venue may be waived").
¶15.
Moreover, the crime here was possession of a controlled substance. The evidence was that he did
not obtain it at the end of the chase, but surely possessed the substance at the beginning, at the end, and
at every point in between. Its discovery at the point that the chase ended does not dilute the inference that
he must have possessed the substance when the chase began in Oktibbeha County. When two counties
are involved in the commission of a crime, either county is a proper venue. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-11-19
(Rev. 2000).
4
¶16. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OKTIBBEHA COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF COCAINE AND SENTENCE OF SIX YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND FINE OF
$2,500 IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO OKTIBBEHA
COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.