Teresa A. Collins v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-KA-00738-COA
TERESA A. COLLINS
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:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
4/16/2001
HON. KEITH STARRETT
WALTHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
GUS GRABLE SERMOS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
DUNNICA O. LAMPTON
CRIMINAL - FELONY
UNLAWFUL SALE OF COCAINE; SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS
IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC WITH THE LAST SEVEN YEARS
TO BE SERVED ON POST RELEASE SUPERVISION AND PAY $5000
FINE
AFFIRMED - 11/05/2002
BEFORE THOMAS, P.J., IRVING AND MYERS, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Teresa Collins was convicted of the offense of the unlawful sale of cocaine in the Walthall County
Circuit Court, Honorable Keith Starrett presiding. From the denial of Collins's "Motion for Judgment
Notwithstanding the Verdict, or in the Alternative, for a New Trial," Collins appeals asserting the following
issue:
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IN THAT THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE
OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Presented by the Prosecution
¶2. On January 25, 2001, Narcotics Agents Brandon Bright, Chad McElveen, and Arzetto Mark assigned
a confidential informant, Louis Pearley, to attempt to purchase cocaine from Collins at her residence.
Pearley did not know what he would be doing prior to the assignment. The agents searched Pearley to
determine whether Pearley may have had any item that would taint the drug bust, such as money or drugs.
For similar reasons, the agents also searched a government owned truck that was to be used by Pearley.
Pearley had no money or drugs on his person nor was there money or drugs in the truck when the
operation began. A video camera and audio recorder were installed in the truck. The agents gave Pearley
five $20 bills to use in making the drug purchase.
¶3. The agents followed Pearley to a location near Collins's residence. The agents stopped and allowed the
informant to proceed on his own. The agents were unable to see Pearley because of the distance required
to maintain the secretive nature of the transaction. However, the agents did not suffer complete sensory
deprivation. The agents were able to hear the entire proceeding through a hidden microphone and later view
the transaction on the videotape.
¶4. When Pearley pulled up to Collins's residence, Collins approached the vehicle. Pearley exchanged three
twenty dollar bills for several pieces of cocaine plus nine dollars in change. Collins had to go into the house
to obtain the cocaine and change for Pearley.
¶5. Pearley met the agents at a designated post-buy location. The remaining money and the substance
purchased by Pearley were taken by the agents. Pearley and the truck were searched again. The substance
was examined by the crime lab and determined to be made of cocaine. The agents arrested Collins at a
later date to avoid revealing Pearley's role as an informant.
Presented by the Defendant
¶6. Collins claimed that Pearley, a person unknown to Collins, only asked for change for a $100 bill when
he arrived at Collins's residence. Collins had to go inside her residence to make change for Pearley. Collins
had two witnesses, who were inside the house, testify that Collins was trying to make change for Pearley
and that Collins returned with a $100 bill. The witnesses did not observe the transaction. Collins claimed
that although she was the person on the videotape, she was handing Pearley change instead of cocaine.
Collins also claimed that Pearley was not searched thoroughly enough, thus Pearly had the opportunity to
hide drugs to be used as evidence of a drug deal.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IN THAT THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE
OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
¶7. Our standard for reviewing challenges to convictions based on whether the verdict is contrary to the
evidence is well established. The challenges are based on whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to
return a verdict of guilty or whether the guilty verdict is not supported by the weight of the evidence or both.
¶8. As to sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court considers all of the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict. Jones v. State, 635 So. 2d 884, 887 (Miss. 1994). A reversal is made when the
evidence is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty. McClain v.
State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993). The Mississippi Supreme Court stated in McClain, the familiar
standard of review for reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence question:
The credible evidence consistent with [the defendant's] guilt must be accepted as true. The
prosecution must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from
the evidence. Matters regarding the weight and credibility of the evidence are to be resolved by the
jury. We are authorized to reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the elements of the
offense charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only
find the accused not guilty.
Id. at 778 (citations omitted).
¶9. As to the weight of the evidence, the trial judge is given wide discretion to order a new trial in the face
of overwhelming evidence contrary to the jury's verdict in order to prevent an unconscionable injustice.
Braxton v. State, 797 So. 2d 826, 828 (¶6) (Miss. 2000); McClain, 625 So. 2d. at 781; Ford v. State,
753 So. 2d 489, 490 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
¶10. A motion for a new trial simply challenges the weight of the evidence. Sheffield v. State, 749 So. 2d
123, 127 (¶16) (Miss. 1999). This is the issue that Collins raises on appeal. The jury was able to hear
testimony from both sides recounting the facts stated earlier. The jury was also allowed to view the
videotape. The jury chose to believe the evidence presented by the prosecution. This Court can not say that
the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence nor was the evidence insufficient to allow a
verdict of guilty. A reasonable and fair minded jury was presented enough evidence to reach a guilty
verdict. This Court affirms the conviction.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WALTHALL COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF UNLAWFUL SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN YEARS
IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH THE
LAST SEVEN YEARS TO BE SERVED ON POST RELEASE SUPERVISION AND PAY $5,
000 FINE IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO WALTHALL
COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
