Milton Downing v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-KA-00263-COA
MILTON DOWNING A/K/A MILTON LEON
DOWNING
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
02/01/2007
HON. CHARLES E. WEBSTER
COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
GEORGE T. HOLMES
LESLIE S. LEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER
LAURENCE Y. MELLEN
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF THE SALE OF COCAINE
AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE
YEARS SUSPENDED TO BE SERVED ON
SUPERVISED PROBATION AND TO PAY A
FINE OF $5,000 WITH $2,500 SUSPENDED.
AFFIRMED - 04/08/2008
BEFORE LEE, P.J., CHANDLER AND BARNES, JJ.
CHANDLER, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Milton Downing was tried for and convicted of sale of cocaine. The Circuit Court of
Coahoma County sentenced Downing to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections, with five years suspended to be served on supervised probation. The trial court also
imposed a fine of $5,000, with $2,500 suspended. Downing appeals and argues that: (1) the State
did not sufficiently establish the chain of custody for the cocaine that was admitted into evidence,
and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
¶2.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶3.
Downing was arrested and charged with sale of cocaine to an undercover agent with the
North Central Mississippi Narcotics Task Force. Agent Bobby Walker testified about the facts
surrounding the cocaine sale. On August 30, 2006, pursuant to an undercover operation, Agent
Walker drove around Clarksdale, Mississippi in an unmarked car. Inside the car was a soda can
equipped with a hidden camera that recorded video, but not sound. Agent Walker came across a
man on the street, stopped his car, and asked the man if he could buy some "hard," otherwise known
as crack cocaine. The man got into the car's passenger seat and directed Agent Walker to drive to
a residence in Clarksdale. Once there, the man exited the car and returned with a substance that
appeared to be crack cocaine. Agent Walker gave the man forty dollars in cash in exchange for the
substance. Then, Agent Walker dropped the man off at an unknown location and secured the
substance inside an evidence bag. Gary Fernandez, with the Mississippi Crime Laboratory in
Batesville, Mississippi, testified that test results showed that the substance inside the evidence bag
was .2 gram of crack cocaine.
¶4.
Agent Walker testified that a videotape was made from the hidden camera recording. This
videotape was played for the jury.
Corporal Milton Williams, with the Clarksdale Police
Department, testified that he viewed the videotape and identified the man shown on the videotape
as Downing. Downing was arrested based on this identification. Corporal Williams testified that,
as a longtime resident of Clarksdale and from his fourteen years as a police officer, he knew
Downing. Corporal Williams stated that he had come in contact with Downing on numerous
2
occasions and that they often spoke at those times. He also testified that Downing has a scar under
his left eye. Agent Walker identified Downing in court as the man from whom he had purchased
cocaine. Downing testified, denying that he was the man who appeared on the videotape. He
admitted that he has a scar under his left eye. Downing maintained that he was elsewhere in
Clarksdale at the time the crime allegedly occurred.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I. WHETHER A SUFFICIENT CHAIN OF CUSTODY WAS ESTABLISHED
FOR STATE'S EXHIBIT 1.
¶5.
During Agent Walker's testimony, the State offered a bag of cocaine into evidence. Downing
objected, arguing that the State had failed to establish a proper chain of custody. The trial court
admitted the bag of cocaine as exhibit S-1 after Agent Walker testified concerning the chain of
custody. Agent Walker testified that he recognized exhibit S-1 as the substance he purchased from
Downing. Agent Walker testified that, after he purchased the substance from Downing, he placed
it into an evidence bag, which he sealed, initialed, and dated. Then, he placed the bag inside a secret
compartment in his vehicle. Agent Walker stated that, upon his return to the task force headquarters,
he obtained a case number and wrote it on the bag. Agent Walker testified that the bag was stored
in the narcotics room at task force headquarters. He said that the task force commander, Mary
Nolden, was the sole person with access to the narcotics room. Agent Walker explained that, when
suspected narcotics are to be sent to the crime lab for testing, Nolden opens the room and authorizes
their transfer to the lab.
¶6.
Fernandez testified that the lab uses a bar coding system to track the movement of substances
within the lab. He testified that the lab policies and procedures were followed in this case.
Fernandez testified that Jackie Johnson accepted the bag into the lab and initialed the bag, and
Fernandez initialed the bag when he resealed it after the substance was tested.
3
¶7.
Agent Walker testified that Agent Anthony Jones was the person who carried the bag of
suspected cocaine to the crime lab. However, after viewing the lab report, Agent Walker recognized
that the lab report indicated the lab had received the bag from Agent Meesha Lessie, whose regular
duty included transporting suspected narcotics to the crime lab. Agent Walker admitted that he had
been mistaken about which agent carried the bag to the lab. Agent Walker also exhibited confusion
about whether or not Agent Lessie waited at the lab for the test results. Agent Walker did not know
who picked up the bag from the lab, but he and Agent Lessie brought it to court that day. On crossexamination, Agent Walker admitted that he conducted between two and four drug buys on August
30, 2006. He stated that he placed the drugs from each buy in separate evidence bags.
¶8.
At the close of the State's evidence, Downing moved for a directed verdict on the ground that
the State failed to complete the chain of custody. Downing argued that the chain of custody was
incomplete because of Agent Walker's confusion over whether Agent Jones or Agent Lessie
transported the cocaine to the crime lab and because there was no testimony about who retrieved it
from the crime lab. The trial court denied Downing's motion. On appeal, Downing argues that the
cocaine should not have been admitted into evidence because Agent Walker's confusion rendered
his testimony unreliable. Downing also argues that the fact that Agent Walker made multiple buys
that day supported a conclusion that, due to accidental substitution, the cocaine admitted as exhibit
S-1 was not the substance which Agent Walker purchased from Downing.
¶9.
"Testimony that a particular material is a controlled substance is of no relevance unless the
State also proves the defendant's connection to that particular substance." Robinson v. State, 733
So. 2d 333, 335 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998). To establish the connection necessary for relevance,
the proponent of the controlled substance must produce "evidence 'sufficient to support a finding
that the matter in question is what its proponents claim.'" Id. (quoting M.R.E. 901(a)). This may
4
be accomplished by establishing a reliable chain of custody of the substance from the time of its
acquisition by the State. Id. However, the fundamental inquiry under Rule 901(a) is whether
sufficient evidence exists to enable a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the
evidence is what it is claimed to be. Id. Therefore, if a "witness makes a positive permissible
identification of the object that it is what its proponent claims," then there is no basis for a chain of
custody objection. Butler v. State, 592 So. 2d 983, 985-86 (Miss. 1991).
¶10.
The test for continuous possession of evidence by the State, known as chain of custody of
evidence, is "whether or not there is any indication or reasonable inference of probable tampering
with the evidence or substitution of the evidence." Gibson v. State, 503 So. 2d 230, 234 (Miss.
1987) (quoting Grady v. State, 274 So. 2d 141, 143 (Miss. 1973)). However, the State is not
required to "produce every person who handled the object or to account for every moment of every
day." Butler, 592 So. 2d at 985. In assessing the reliability of the chain of custody, there is a
presumption of regularity supporting the acts of public officials. Anderson v. State, 904 So. 2d 973,
979 (¶19) (Miss. 2004). The defendant bears the burden of producing evidence of a broken chain
of custody. Id. The trial court has substantial discretion in matters regarding the chain of custody
of evidence. This Court will not reverse the trial court's decision unless its discretion was so abused
as to be prejudicial to the defendant. Nix v. State, 276 So. 2d 652, 653 (Miss. 1973).
¶11.
We find that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the bag of cocaine
proffered by the State. There was sufficient evidence to enable a reasonable jury to conclude beyond
a reasonable doubt that the bag of cocaine admitted as the State's exhibit 1 was that substance sold
by Downing to Agent Walker. At the trial, Agent Walker properly identified the bag of cocaine as
the substance that he bought from Downing. He pointed out his initials on the bag, the case number,
and his seal. Though Agent Walker initially was mistaken about which agent carried the substance
5
to the lab, the State established through the lab report, and Agent Walker's subsequent testimony,
that Agent Lessie carried the substance to the lab. Fernandez testified that the substance was tracked
at the lab via bar code and initialed by employees, and the lab's policies and procedures were
followed in this case. Without more, the fact that Agent Walker performed between two and four
drug buys on August 30, 2006, is too speculative to show a probability that other drugs were
substituted for the substance Agent Walker purchased from Downing. Downing must prove a
probability of substitution, not a mere possibility. Ellis v. State, 934 So. 2d 1000, 1005-06 (¶23)
(Miss. 2006). The State submitted sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the State's
exhibit S-1 contained the substance which Agent Walker bought from Downing and that no
substitution or tampering occurred. This issue is without merit.
II. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE VERDICT.
¶12.
Downing's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) was denied by the trial
court, and he now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict. When the
defendant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence via a motion for JNOV, "the critical inquiry is
whether the evidence shows 'beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and
that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the
evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.'" Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d
836, 843 (¶16) (Miss. 2005) (quoting Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 886, 889 (Miss. 1968)). We view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 315 (1979)). We will affirm if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
¶13.
Downing was convicted of violating Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139(a)(1)
(Rev. 2005), which makes it a crime to knowingly or intentionally "sell, barter, transfer,
6
manufacture, distribute, dispense or possess with intent to sell, barter, transfer, manufacture,
distribute or dispense, a controlled substance." In his argument on this issue, Downing does not
contest the proof that someone sold Agent Walker cocaine, but rather he maintains that the State
failed to prove Downing was that person. Downing asserts that Agent Walker's identification
testimony was not credible because Agent Walker observed the person who sold him cocaine on
only that one occasion, and Agent Walker testified that he did not know the seller's name. Downing
contends that, due to the inadequacy of Agent Walker's identification, the jury was bound to accept
Downing's conflicting testimony that he was elsewhere in Clarksdale at the time of the cocaine sale.
¶14.
Downing's argument fails to acknowledge the testimony of Corporal Williams. Corporal
Williams's testimony indicated that he had a high degree of familiarity with Downing, stemming
from numerous encounters with him. Corporal Williams testified that Downing was the person on
the videotape. The Court has viewed the videotape of the cocaine sale. The high-quality, color
videotape shows a man getting into the passenger side of a vehicle. The duration of the videotape
is approximately eight minutes; the man exits the car for approximately two minutes and then
returns. The man is talking, gesticulating, and eating snack food out of a bag as the vehicle moves.
The face of the man, with a scar under the left eye, is clearly visible from an upward angle for most
of the tape's duration. We find that the totality of the evidence supporting Downing's identification
as the cocaine seller was sufficient to enable a rational jury to conclude he was that person.
¶15. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COAHOMA COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCE OF TEN YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE
YEARS SUSPENDED TO BE SERVED ON SUPERVISED PROBATION AND A FINE OF
$5,000 WITH $2,500 SUSPENDED IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO COAHOMA COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
7
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.
