Christine Barnett v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-KA-01571-COA
CHRISTINE BARNETT A/K/A CHRISTINA
BARNETT
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
6/29/2007
HON. ROBERT G. EVANS
SMITH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
G. DAVID GARNER
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD
EDDIE H. BOWEN
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF
METHAMPHETAMINE AND SENTENCED TO
FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
AFFIRMED - 07/22/2008
BEFORE LEE, P.J., CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
On February 22, 2006, Sheriff Charlie Crumpton and Chief Deputy Marty Patterson were
traveling east on Highway 28 in the southwestern part of Smith County when a vehicle veered into
their lane. Sheriff Crumpton and Chief Deputy Patterson conducted a traffic stop. Sheriff Crumpton
testified that upon approaching the driver’s side of the vehicle, he noticed that the driver, Christina
Barnett, was “almost belligerent,” “extremely agitated,” and “nervous.” He further testified that
Barnett screamed and yelled at him as he placed her under arrest for careless driving.
¶2.
Chief Deputy Patterson testified that he approached the vehicle on the passenger’s side.
When the passenger lowered the window, Patterson “detected the odors of crystal methamphetamine
immediately coming from inside the vehicle.” Patterson asked the passenger, Cynthia McCallum,
if there were narcotics or anything illegal in the vehicle. She replied that there was not. A search
incident to arrest was performed on the vehicle. In a small black leather bag between the
passenger’s and driver’s seats, Patterson found what appeared to be methamphetamine. McCallum
later admitted that she was guilty of possessing methamphetamine and entered into a plea agreement.
¶3.
Barnett was tried and found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court of Smith County of
possession of methamphetamine in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139 (Rev.
2005). She was sentenced to serve five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections. Barnett filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the
alternative, for a new trial, which was denied. Barnett now appeals, asserting that the State failed
to prove that she exerted control over or constructive possession of the methamphetamine for which
she was arrested.
¶4.
Finding no error, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
I. DID THE CIRCUIT COURT ERR IN DENYING BARNETT’S MOTION FOR
A JNOV?
¶5.
Barnett argues that her motion for a JNOV should have been granted because the State failed
to prove that she had constructive possession of the methamphetamine or of the bag where the
methamphetamine was found.
¶6.
“A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict implicates the sufficiency of the
evidence.” Ginn v. State, 860 So. 2d 675, 684 (¶31) (Miss. 2003). In reviewing the sufficiency of
2
the evidence, “all evidence supporting a guilty verdict is accepted as true, and the [State] must be
given the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the evidence.” Bell
v. State, 910 So. 2d 640, 646 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (citing McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774,
778 (Miss. 1993)). “When on appeal one convicted of a criminal offense challenges the legal
sufficiency of the evidence, our authority to interfere with the jury’s verdict is quite limited.”
Phinisee v. State, 864 So. 2d 988, 992 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Moody v. State, 841 So.
2d 1067, 1092 (¶73) (Miss. 2003)). “If the facts and the inferences so considered point in favor of
the accused with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant was guilty, reversal and discharge are required.” Id.
¶7.
Because the methamphetamine was not found on Barnett’s person, the State had the burden
of proving that Barnett was in the constructive possession of the narcotics. “Constructive possession
allows the prosecution to establish possession of contraband when evidence of actual possession is
absent. Constructive possession is established by evidence showing that the contraband was under
the dominion and control of the defendant.” Roberson v. State, 595 So. 2d 1310, 1319 (Miss. 1992).
“[T]here must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that the defendant was aware of the presence
and character of the particular [contraband] and was intentionally and consciously in possession of
it.” Curry v. State, 249 So. 2d 414, 416 (Miss. 1971).
¶8.
In addition to proving constructive possession, the State was also required to show
“additional incriminating facts” that connected Barnett with the methamphetamine since the
methamphetamine was not found on premises in her “exclusive control and possession.” Ginn, 860
So. 2d at 685 (¶32). The car was not in Barnett’s exclusive possession and control because she was
not the owner of the car, and McCallum was also in close proximity to the narcotics.
¶9.
The State called Sheriff Crumpton, Chief Deputy Patterson, and McCallum to testify
3
regarding Barnett’s connection to the narcotics. Patterson testified that when the passenger window
was lowered, he “detected the odors of crystal methamphetamine immediately coming from inside
the vehicle.” Sheriff Crumpton and Patterson testified that Barnett was “almost belligerent,”
“extremely agitated,” and “nervous,” and that these traits were consistent with those of a person
using methamphetamine. When questioned about the substance in the black bag, McCallum told
Patterson that she and Barnett had bought it from a black male named “M.B.” Patterson also
testified that Barnett told him she and McCallum had gone to meet a black male named “M.B.” to
purchase crystal methamphetamine. Finally, McCallum gave the following testimony:
Q: Whose meth was this that was found in the car that’s introduced into evidence
today?
A: It was a bag that we had both been doing it out of the night before and that
morning.
¶10.
Accepting as true all the evidence supporting the guilty verdict, we cannot find that the
circuit court erred in denying Barnett’s motion for a JNOV. We find that the State proved additional
factors sufficient to show that Barnett had constructive possession of the narcotics. This issue is
without merit.
II. DID THE CIRCUIT COURT ERR IN DENYING BARNETT’S MOTION FOR
A NEW TRIAL?
¶11.
Barnett argues that she should have been granted a new trial because the verdict was against
the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In support of her argument, Barnett points out that
McCallum claimed ownership of the bag, most of the narcotics were found on McCallum’s person
and in her clothes, and McCallum testified that Barnett was not present when she purchased the
narcotics.
¶12.
A motion for a new trial falls within a lower standard of review than for a motion for a
JNOV. Ginn, 860 So. 2d at 685 (¶31). “A motion for a new trial simply challenges the weight of
4
the evidence.” Id. “[W]e will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the overwhelming
weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush
v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 844 (¶18) (Miss. 2005). Furthermore, the jury determines the credibility
of witnesses and resolves conflicts in the evidence. Evans v. State, 725 So. 2d 613, 680-81 (¶293)
(Miss. 1997).
¶13.
Given the testimony discussed above, we cannot find that allowing the verdict to stand
“would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush, 895 So. 2d at 844 (¶18). We find that the
evidence presented at trial was not such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find
Barnett not guilty, nor was the verdict contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
Therefore, we find Barnett’s contentions to be without merit.
¶14. THE JUDGMENT OF THE SMITH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION
OF POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO SMITH COUNTY.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, 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.
