Lee A. Nelson v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-KA-00550-COA
LEE A. NELSON A/K/A LEE
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF 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:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
12/15/2003
HON. KEITH STARRETT
PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JOHN H. OTT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JOHN R. HENRY
DEE BATES
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF COCAINE
AND SENTENCED TO A TERM OF FOUR
YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
AFFIRMED - 10/18/2005
BEFORE BRIDGES, P.J., MYERS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
CHANDLER, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Lee A. Nelson was convicted of possession of cocaine by a Pike County Circuit Court jury and
sentenced to a term of four years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
As part of its case against Nelson, the State called Norma Parnell, a witness who testified that Nelson was
at the scene of a drug transaction five months prior to the event that led to his arrest and conviction.
Nelson, appeals, raising the following issue:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN THE ADMISSION OF PARNELL’S TESTIMONY?
¶2.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶3.
On the evening of July 3, 2002, while on routine patrol, Southwest Narcotics Task Force agents
Scott Thompson and Troy Floyd stopped Lee Nelson for failing to signal a right turn. Parnell was driving
a 1993 Buick Regal. Deputy Floyd proceeded towards the driver’s side of Nelson’s car. When Deputy
Floyd approached the rear of the vehicle, Thompson came up behind him because Deputy Floyd had
drawn his weapon. The two men shined their flashlights into Nelson’s car. Thompson saw Nelson “drop
something in the center console.” After Nelson was ordered to exit the car, what was described as a crack
cocaine “pipe”was found on the floor of the passenger side of the vehicle and a plastic bag containing a
substance that appeared to be crack cocaine was found in the console. A field test performed on the
substance at the scene was positive for the presence of cocaine. Nelson was arrested and charged with
possession of cocaine. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139 (Rev. 2001). A check that was run on the vehicle
Nelson was driving identified the owner of the vehicle as Norma Parnell.
¶4.
Nelson took the witness stand at trial. His defense was that he was merely borrowing the vehicle
to make a trip to the store and therefore had no knowledge of the contents in the car.
¶5.
The State called Parnell to testify at trial. Immediately after Parnell was sworn in as a witness, the
court excused the jury at Nelson’s attorney’s request. Thereafter, Parnell gave her testimony, outside the
presence of the jury.
¶6.
Parnell testified that she knew both Nelson and Hosea Walker, who were also friends with
each other. Parnell testified that in January or February of 2002, she had pawned her 1993 Buick Regal
to Walker for crack cocaine. To complete this transaction, she drove the car to a house on Elmwood
2
Street, where she met Walker and Nelson. Walker told Parnell that Nelson would drive her home and then
return the car to him. In reality, Nelson drove Parnell home and departed, still driving her car. Parnell did
not see her car again until she and her husband picked it up from the police station after Nelson was
arrested.
¶7.
After Parnell testified outside the presence of the jury, Nelson’s attorney objected to allowing the
jury to hear the evidence, on the grounds that the transaction that occurred in January or February of 2002
was so prejudicial that it should be excluded. M.R.E. 403. The State argued that the testimony was
essential, because the testimony was proof that Nelson exercised dominion and control over the vehicle
at the time of his arrest, a crucial element in helping to establish the State’s charge that Nelson was in
possession of the cocaine.
¶8.
Following a proffer of Parnell’s testimony outside the presence of the jury, the trial court ruled that
the testimony would be allowed. After Parnell testified in the presence of the jury, the court instructed the
jury as follows:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is not alleged nor should you consider that this
defendant, Mr. Nelson, had anything to do with the sale of crack cocaine [in early
2002] that you have just heard testimony about. There is no proof that he did.
You are specifically instructed to disregard that testimony insofar as any proof of guilt of
this defendant as to what occurred on the third day - - I think it was the third day of
July of 2002.
ANALYSIS
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN THE ADMISSION OF PARNELL’S TESTIMONY?
¶9.
This Court’s standard of review for the admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion.
Harrison v. McMillan, 828 So.2d 756, 765(¶ 27) (Miss. 2002) (citing Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs,
749 So.2d 110, 113 (¶12) (Miss.1999)).
3
¶10.
Our courts have held that the prosecution has “a legitimate interest in telling a rational and coherent
story of what happened” and may present its case “even though it may reveal or suggest other crimes.”
Mackbee v. State, 575 So. 2d 16, 28 (Miss. 1990). The judge considered the evidence in light of M.R.E.
403 and allowed Parnell’s testimony because it was relevant to show how Nelson came into possession
of the car, thereby helping to establish that Nelson was in possession of the cocaine. The evidence
concerning Nelson’s role in pawning the vehicle was essential to allow the State to counter Nelson’s
testimony that he had only borrowed the car and had no knowledge of anything found in the car. In
addition, the judge instructed the jury to consider Parnell’s evidence only for the purpose of proving that
Nelson had dominion and control of the car. The admission of Parnell’s testimony was a proper exercise
of discretion by the trial court.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION OF
POSSESSION OF COCAINE AND SENTENCE OF FOUR YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF
THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF
THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING, MYERS, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND
ISHEE, 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.
