Wright v. State

334 So.3d 1115

Senque WRIGHT a/k/a Senque Santanze Wright a/k/a Senque Santanz Wright

v.STATE of Mississippi

NO. 2020-KA-00505-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

October 21, 2021

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, BY: HUNTER N. AIKENS, GEORGE T. HOLMES, Jackson

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: BARBARA BYRD, Jackson

BEFORE RANDOLPH, C.J., COLEMAN AND CHAMBERLIN, JJ.

COLEMAN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A Pearl River County jury convicted Senque Wright of possessing a dirk knife as a convicted felon on January 23, 2020.¹ The trial court adjudged Wright a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2020) and sentenced him to serve ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The trial court denied Wright's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Wright appealed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Around 6:00 p.m. on January 6, 2019, Officer John Bolton of the Picayune Police Department was called by an informant who told him that "[t]here was a black male subject in front of Apartment No. 1 at Hunan Apartments ... [and] that the subject was in possession of a gun." Bolton was also informed that the individual had trespassed at the location previously. Bolton contacted Picayune Police Department dispatch, advised them of the situation, and asked them to send an officer to the scene.

¶3. Lieutenant Aaron Grob responded to the area immediately and spoke with several individuals who stated that they had seen the man, later identified as Wright. The individuals pointed out the man to Grob. Grob approached Wright and directed him to turn around and place his hands on the wall. During the patdown that followed, Grob was pierced by the blade of a knife in Wright's pocket. Grob testified that Wright asked Grob if he had cut himself on the knife. Grob handcuffed Wright and secured the knife. Grob also retrieved a plastic bag containing a crystalized substance he believed to be methamphetamine. Grob then arrested Wright for possessing a controlled substance. Wright was charged with possessing a misdemeanor amount of methamphetamine and felon in possession of a prohibited weapon, a dirk knife.

¶4. At trial, Grob testified that he described the weapon as a dirk knife because it had a "sharpened edge on one side, was tapered to a point, and would primarily be used for stabbing." After considering the evidence, the jury found that Wright was guilty of felon in possession of a dirk knife. Wright now appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5. "Whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists is subject to a de novo review. But the Court limits the de novo review of the trial court's determination to ‘historical facts reviewed under the substantial evidence and clearly erroneous standards.’ " Martin v. State , 240 So. 3d 1047, 1050 (¶ 7) (Miss. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Eaddy v. State , 63 So. 3d 1209, 1212 (¶ 11) (Miss. 2011) ). "As with all evidentiary issues, our standard for reviewing a trial judge's admission or exclusion of evidence is one of abuse of discretion." Taggart v. State , 957 So. 2d 981, 989 (¶ 17) (Miss. 2007) (citing Shaw v. State , 915 So. 2d 442, 445 (¶ 8) (Miss. 2005) ). "When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court considers all of the evidence in the light most consistent with the verdict, giving the State the benefit of all inferences favorable to the verdict." Meek v. State , 806 So. 2d 236, 239 (¶ 9) (Miss. 2001) (citing Jones v. State , 669 So. 2d 1383, 1388 (Miss. 1995) ). "When the evidence before the jury is such that reasonable jurors could have found the defendant guilty, the verdict is beyond our authority to disturb." Id. (citing Taylor v. State , 672 So. 2d 1246, 1255 (Miss. 1996) ).

DISCUSSION

¶6. Wright argues that the trial court erred by denying Wright's motion to suppress evidence. Wright argues that Grob lacked reasonable suspicion to support his detention and patdown of Wright. Wright further argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict because the State failed to meet its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright's knife was a prohibited dirk knife.

I. The trial court did not err by denying Wright's motion to suppress.

¶7. Wright argues that the search of his person was illegal and that the evidence obtained from the search should have been excluded. He argues that "[a] vague report of a black man with a firearm in front of Apartment No. 1" was an insufficient basis to conduct an investigatory search.

¶8. The Court has held that "a person may be detained short of a full arrest for investigatory purposes." Dies v. State , 926 So. 2d 910, 918 (¶ 22) (Miss. 2006) (citing Jones v. State , 841 So. 2d 115, 125 (¶ 18) (Miss. 2003) ). An investigative stop is permitted as long as an officer "[has] some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity." Id. (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs , 749 So. 2d 110, 114 (¶ 16) (Miss. 1999) ). The Court must consider, under the totality of the circumstances, "whether the officer had a ‘particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’ " Id. (quoting Floyd , 749 So. 2d at 114 (¶ 16) ). "Grounds for reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop generally come from two sources: either the officers’ ‘personal observation’ or an informant's tip." Eaddy , 63 So. 3d at 1213 (¶ 15) (quoting Williamson v. State , 876 So. 2d 353, 355 (¶ 11) (Miss. 2004) ). Finally, "an informant's tip may provide reasonable suspicion if accompanied by some indication of reliability; for example, reliability may be shown from the officer's independent investigation of the informant's information." Id. (citing Florida v. J.L. , 529 U.S. 266, 270, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) ).

¶9. The confidential informant called Bolton and alerted him of a man with a gun at Hunan Apartments. The informant also notified Bolton that Wright had trespassed at the apartments before. Bolton then called dispatch to advise them to send an officer to the location and check on the information provided by the confidential informant. After dispatch was given the information, Grob was sent to Hunan Apartments. Once there, Grob approached a group of people sitting in the common area of the apartments and asked them if they had seen anyone with a gun. The witnesses corroborated the informant's information, then directed Grob to Wright. Because Bolton was provided with information that Wright had trespassed at the apartments before, Bolton had reasonable suspicion that Wright may have been engaged in criminal activity. Bolton's reasonable suspicion was then transferred to Grob. "This Court has held that reasonable suspicion and probable cause can be transferred from officer to officer and police department to police department." Dies v. State , 926 So. 2d at 920 (¶ 29) (citing Jones v. State , 841 So. 2d at 126 (¶ 24) ). Grob had reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigatory search. Accordingly, we find that the evidence was admissible and that the trial judge did not err by denying the motion to suppress.

II. The State presented sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict.

¶10. Wright argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the knife Wright possessed was a dirk knife prohibited by Mississippi Code Section 97-37-5. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-37-5(1) (Rev. 2020). "When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court considers all of the evidence in the light most consistent with the verdict, giving the State the benefit of all inferences favorable to the verdict." Meek , 806 So. 2d at 239 (¶ 9) (citing Jones , 669 So. 2d at 1388 ). "When the evidence before the jury is such that reasonable jurors could have found the defendant guilty, the verdict is beyond our authority to disturb." Id. (citing Taylor , 672 So. 2d at 1255 ).

¶11. Mississippi Code Section 97-37-5 prohibits convicted felons from possessing four types of knives: "[a]ny bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, [or] switchblade knife." Miss. Code Ann. § 97-37-5(1). The Court of Appeals stated in Summerall v. State : "to qualify as a dirk knife, [a] weapon must: (1) have a blade with at least one sharpened edge which tapers to a point and (2) be designed primarily for use as a stabbing weapon." Summerall v. State , 41 So. 3d 729, 737 (¶ 32) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). We agree.

¶12. At trial, the jury saw the knife that was found in Wright's possession. The knife did in fact have one sharpened edge and was tapered to a point. Viewing the evidence in the light most consistent with the verdict, a reasonable juror could have found that the knife was a dirk knife under Section 97-37-5(1). Accordingly, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

CONCLUSION

¶13. Because Grob had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop, we find that the trial court did not err by denying Wright's motion to suppress evidence. Further, because the knife found in Wright's possession was shown to the jury, sufficient evidence was presented for a reasonable juror to conclude that the knife was a dirk knife primarily used for stabbing. We affirm the trial court's decision.

¶14. AFFIRMED.

RANDOLPH, C.J., MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR. KING, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J., AND ISHEE, J.

Attachment

KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, DISSENTING:

¶15. Law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Senque Wright; therefore, evidence from the investigatory stop should be suppressed. Additionally, the State failed to present sufficient evidence that the knife in Wright's possession was a statutorily prohibited dirk knife. This Court should reverse and render Wright's conviction for possessing a dirk...