Wingfield v. State

A jury found Jerry Lamar Wingfield guilty of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine as a lesser included offense of possession with intent to distribute.1 On appeal, Wingfield claims that the trial court erred in i denying his motion for a directed verdict, ii not rebuking the prosecutor or granting his motion for a mistrial based on a statement made by the prosecutor in closing argument, and iii not providing him with the opportunity to address that statement in a concluding argument. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. Wingfield first claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is the same as for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.2 That is, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence.3 “This court neither weighs the evidence nor judges the credibility of witnesses, but only determines whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”4

So viewed, the record shows that at approximately 9:30 p.m. on April 9, 2004, police officers with the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office conducted a traffic stop on Wingfield’s truck. As the officers approached, one of them saw Wingfield’s passenger extend his hand out the truck window and drop what appeared to be bags of crack and powder cocaine.5 The officers patted down both men, and one officer found “a big bulk” in Wingfield’s pocket that contained over $2,000 in cash.