Alfred Griffin v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-KA-01756-COA
ALFRED GRIFFIN
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
9/6/2002
HON. R. I. PRICHARD, III
MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
MORRIS SWEATT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: SCOTT STUART
CLAIBORNE MCDONALD
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE, AND
SENTENCE OF EIGHT YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, WITH THE LAST FOUR
YEARS SUSPENDED AND SPENT ON POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, AND ORDERED TO
PAY FINES OF $3000, TO REIMBURSE THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S FUND $2000, TO PAY
OLD FINES OF $394.50 TO THE MARION
COUNTY JUSTICE COURT, AND TO PAY ALL
COSTS OF COURT.
AFFIRMED - 11/18/2003
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE, MYERS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
LEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
On September 4, 2002, a jury in the Circuit Court of Marion County found Alfred Griffin guilty of
the crime of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine. Griffin was sentenced to serve eight years in
the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with the last four years suspended, contingent
upon the successful completion of the first four years, and spent on post-release supervision. Griffin was
also ordered to pay a fine of three thousand dollars. Griffin now appeals to this Court, asserting the
following issues: (1) the trial court erred in not sustaining his motion for a directed verdict on the ground
that the State failed to prove the charges contained in the indictment; (2) the trial court erred in denying his
jury instruction D-1; and (3) the verdict was contrary to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Finding
these issues to be without merit, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
On April 2, 2000, Griffin and Troy Johnson were sitting in front of Griffin's apartment drinking beer,
which was not allowed on the apartment complex premises. Officer James Carney was providing security
for the apartment complex when he noticed a brown paper bag on the porch near Griffin and Johnson.
Suspecting it contained beer, Officer Carney approached Griffin and Johnson and noticed that they were
each holding a beer can. As Officer Carney asked the two men to stand up, both Griffin and Johnson
turned and ran with Officer Carney pursuing Griffin. While running, Griffin reached into his pants and
dropped something on the ground. After chasing Griffin, Carney returned to the spot where he had seen
Griffin drop something and found a matchbox with six pieces of crack cocaine inside.
2
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING GRIFFIN'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED
VERDICT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE THE CHARGES
CONTAINED IN THE INDICTMENT?
II. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING JURY INSTRUCTION D-1, A
PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION?
¶3.
As a motion for a directed verdict and a request for a peremptory instruction both challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence, we will examine the first two issues together and then address the weight of the
evidence issue. The standard of review for directed verdicts and peremptory instructions is the same: the
trial judge is required to accept as true all of the evidence favorable to the State, including any reasonable
inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Wall v. State, 718 So. 2d 1107 (¶15) (Miss. 1998).
"Peremptory instructions should be refused if there is enough evidence to support a verdict." Warn v.
State, 349 So. 2d 1055, 1055 (Miss. 1977). If, under this standard, sufficient evidence to support the
jury's verdict of guilty exists, the motion for a directed verdict and request for peremptory instruction should
be denied. Isaac v. State, 645 So. 2d 903, 907 (Miss. 1994). The court will reverse only when
reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty. Wetz v. State, 503 So. 2d 803,
808 (Miss. 1987). It is the jury's duty to resolve any conflicts in testimony. Groseclose v. State, 440 So.
2d 297, 300 (Miss. 1983).
¶4.
Griffin's argument consists of a blanket statement that the State failed to overcome the presumption
of innocence by failing to meet their burden of proof. Griffin also states that, since the only evidence was
one man's word against another, there was insufficient evidence to convict. However, the jury believed the
testimony of Officer Carney. Carney did not lose sight of Griffin during the chase and he saw the exact
location where Griffin threw the matchbox. Carney testified that the area where he found the matchbox
3
had recently been mowed and that there were no other items on the ground near the matchbox.
Furthermore, there was testimony to prove that the substance in the matchbox was cocaine. We find that
the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find that Griffin was guilty of the crime charged.
These issues are without merit.
¶5.
III. WAS THE VERDICT CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT
AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE?
As we discussed the sufficiency of the evidence above, we look to whether the verdict was
contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The standard of review is as follows:
[T]his Court must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict and will reverse
only when convinced that the circuit court has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new
trial. Only in those cases where the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of
the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this
Court disturb it on appeal. As such, if the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the
evidence, then a new trial is proper.
Baker v. State, 802 So. 2d 77 (¶14) (Miss. 2001). Although Griffin claims the verdict was contrary to
the weight of the evidence, he fails to offer any substantial argument as to why his conviction should be
reversed. He asserts that since the verdict of the jury was not based on the evidence or the law, it must
have been based on extraneous matters or bias or prejudice. However, Griffin fails to point out any specific
examples of bias or prejudice involved. From the available evidence, we cannot find that to let the verdict
stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. Thus, we find this issue to be without merit.
¶6.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION
OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE, AND SENTENCE OF
EIGHT YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS WITH FOUR YEARS TO SERVE AND FOUR YEARS ON POST-RELEASE
SUPERVISION, AND ORDERED TO PAY FINE OF $3000, TO REIMBURSE THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S FUND $2000 AND TO PAY OLD FINES OF $394.50 TO THE MARION
COUNTY JUSTICE COURT, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO MARION COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, IRVING,
MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.
