Rebecca Lynn Bumgardner a/k/a Rebecca Bumgardner a/k/a Rebecca L. Bumgardner v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 2024-KA-00090-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2024-KA-00090-COA

REBECCA LYNN BUMGARDNER A/K/A APPELLANT REBECCA BUMGARDNER A/K/A REBECCA L. BUMGARDNER

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/26/2023 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MICHELLE DEAN EASTERLING COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JULIANNE KAY BAILEY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: SCOTT WINSTON COLOM NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/28/2025 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., EMFINGER AND WEDDLE, JJ.

WEDDLE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A Lowndes County Circuit Court jury found Rebecca Bumgardner guilty of three

counts of selling less than two grams of methamphetamine. The Lowndes County Circuit

Court sentenced Bumgardner as a habitual offender to serve three consecutive eight-year

terms in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) without

eligibility for probation or parole. On appeal from her convictions and sentences,

Bumgardner asserts that (1) the State presented insufficient evidence to support her

convictions, (2) the circuit court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment, and (3) the circuit court erred by failing to issue several requested

subpoenas duces tecum. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Bumgardner’s convictions

and sentences.

FACTS

¶2. Jeff Edmondson with the narcotics unit of the Lowndes County Sheriff’s Office

testified that several months prior to Bumgardner’s arrest, his unit received complaints and

tips about suspected drug activity in the area of Bumgardner’s residence. Based on these

complaints and tips, the narcotics unit opened an investigation. The narcotics agents began

canvassing the neighborhood and trying to corroborate the information about suspected drug

activity in the vicinity of Bumgardner’s trailer.

¶3. The narcotics agents discovered that a confidential informant named Tonya Blanton

was familiar with Bumgardner and willing to attempt to purchase drugs directly from

Bumgardner. Edmondson testified that Blanton informed him about a phone call in which

Bumgardner had offered to sell Blanton illegal narcotics. Based on the information they had

received, Edmondson and other narcotics agents met with Blanton and arranged for her to

approach Bumgardner about purchasing drugs.

¶4. On June 28, 2022, Blanton conducted the first of three controlled narcotics purchases

involving Bumgardner. Blanton met Edmondson and other agents at a location near

Bumgardner’s trailer. The agents searched Blanton and her vehicle to ensure Blanton had

nothing illegal in her possession that might jeopardize the purchase attempt. The agents also

reviewed with Blanton the safety procedures for conducting the narcotics purchase. The

2 agents then gave Blanton $40 to purchase narcotics as well as a recording device to document

the purchase. Both Edmondson and Blanton testified that Blanton proceeded to

Bumgardner’s trailer, where Blanton gave the $40 to Bumgardner. Blanton stated that after

Bumgardner counted the money to make sure the amount was correct, Bumgardner asked her

boyfriend, Chris Stokes, to give Blanton a substance that the Mississippi Crime Laboratory

later identified as methamphetamine. Blanton pretended to eat the methamphetamine but

actually hid it inside her pocket.1 After completing the purchase, Blanton again met with the

narcotics agents and turned over the methamphetamine and the recording device. The agents

once more searched Blanton and her vehicle to ensure that she had no contraband in her

possession that could jeopardize the credibility of the purchase.

¶5. Edmondson stated that Blanton contacted him again after Bumgardner had confirmed

that she (Bumgardner) had more methamphetamine to sell. Based on Blanton’s disclosure,

the narcotics agents arranged for Blanton to conduct a second controlled purchase from

Bumgardner on June 29, 2022. Edmondson testified that the second controlled purchase of

methamphetamine was important to “show[] consistency that [Bumgardner was] actively

selling” narcotics. Blanton again met agents at a pre-purchase location, where the agents

searched Blanton and provided her with money and a recording device. Blanton testified that

she called Bumgardner through Facebook Messenger to arrange the second narcotics

purchase. After speaking with Bumgardner, Blanton drove to Bumgardner’s trailer. When

1 Both Edmondson and Blanton testified that after completing the narcotics purchase on June 28, 2022, Blanton took a drug test, which confirmed that Blanton had not actually consumed the methamphetamine she purchased.

3 Blanton arrived, however, Bumgardner was not present. Blanton again spoke with

Bumgardner by phone and explained that she had money to give Bumgardner in exchange

for drugs. Bumgardner’s boyfriend, Stokes, arrived and took Blanton to meet Bumgardner

at a different location. Bumgardner then directed Blanton to return to Bumgardner’s trailer.

When Blanton arrived back at the trailer, she stated that she met Bumgardner’s neighbor,

Deonna Gattis.

¶6. Blanton followed Gattis inside Gattis’s trailer, which was located next to

Bumgardner’s trailer. Blanton stated that Gattis spoke to Bumgardner over the phone, and

then Gattis took Blanton’s money in exchange for drugs. After completing the narcotics

purchase, Blanton exited Gattis’s trailer, where she encountered both Bumgardner and

Stokes. Blanton testified that she then drove to the post-purchase location to meet with the

narcotics agents. Blanton gave the agents the substance she had purchased, which was later

tested and confirmed to be methamphetamine.

¶7. The following day, on June 30, 2022, the narcotics agents arranged a third controlled

purchase involving Blanton and Bumgardner. After the agents conducted a pre-purchase

search of Blanton and her vehicle, Blanton returned to the property where Bumgardner’s and

Gattis’s trailers were located. Blanton exited her vehicle and handed Bumgardner some

money. When Bumgardner asked what kind of drugs Blanton wanted to purchase, Blanton

asked for “dope.” Bumgardner responded, “Okay,” and then she walked inside Gattis’s

trailer. Blanton stated that both Bumgardner and Gattis exited the trailer, and Gattis handed

Blanton a substance later identified as methamphetamine. After Blanton left, she returned

4 to the narcotics agents and turned over the methamphetamine she had purchased.

¶8. Law enforcement officers arrested several individuals, including Bumgardner, Gattis,

and Stokes. A Lowndes County grand jury indicted Bumgardner for three counts of selling

less than two grams of methamphetamine. At Bumgardner’s trial, Gattis testified that she

still had charges pending against her for her role in the methamphetamine sales and that the

district attorney’s office had not offered her a deal or any leniency in exchange for her

testimony. Gattis explained that she and Bumgardner were neighbors and had become

friends during the three years they had known each other. Gattis admitted that she and

Bumgardner not only had used methamphetamine together but also had sold

methamphetamine together. Gattis stated that she also had seen Bumgardner sell drugs other

than methamphetamine.

¶9. Gattis testified that on June 29, 2022, the date of the second controlled narcotics

purchase, Bumgardner asked her to be a lookout because someone was going to stop by

Bumgardner’s trailer. Gattis stated that she had not met Blanton before that day and did not

know Blanton was a confidential informant. Gattis confirmed Blanton’s earlier testimony

that Bumgardner had called Gattis while Blanton was inside Gattis’s trailer. Gattis testified

that Bumgardner asked Gattis to sell drugs to Blanton because Bumgardner “felt a little

spooked” by Blanton. Gattis agreed to act on Bumgardner’s behalf and take Blanton’s

money in exchange for Bumgardner’s methamphetamine. Gattis stated that she gave the

money from the drug sale to Bumgardner when Bumgardner arrived at Gattis’s trailer.

¶10. Gattis confirmed that she again participated in selling drugs to Blanton the following

5 day on June 30, 2022. Gattis testified that after Bumgardner took Blanton’s money on June

30, 2022, Bumgardner walked inside Gattis’s trailer. Gattis stated that once Bumgardner

entered the trailer, Bumgardner produced some methamphetamine hidden inside her clothing.

Bumgardner asked if Gattis would walk outside and hand the methamphetamine to Blanton,

and Gattis agreed. Gattis testified that she handed the methamphetamine to Blanton as

Bumgardner stood nearby and watched.

¶11. After the State rested its case-in-chief, Bumgardner testified in her own defense and

denied the charges against her. Bumgardner stated that around the time in question, she

needed to move items from a storage unit, but she did not have a truck. Blanton had access

to a truck and offered to help Bumgardner move her items. Bumgardner testified that every

time she encountered Blanton, Blanton would pester her about buying drugs. Although

Bumgardner admitted to frequently using drugs, she repeatedly denied that she ever sold

them. Bumgardner stated, however, that she lied to Blanton about having drugs to sell

because she wanted to use Blanton’s truck.

¶12. Bumgardner testified that during her interaction with Blanton on June 28, 2022, her

boyfriend, Stokes, placed a small “rock” of methamphetamine on a mirror and passed the

mirror to Blanton. According to Bumgardner, neither she nor Stokes had sold the

methamphetamine to Blanton. Instead, Bumgardner testified that she and Stokes only

intended to allow Blanton to snort methamphetamine with them.

¶13. With regard to the latter two drug purchases that involved Gattis, Bumgardner denied

that she ever called Gattis to set up any drug deals. Throughout her testimony, Bumgardner

6 denied that she was ever “involved in a drug deal” or that she received money “at any time

to do any kind of drug deals.” Bumgardner maintained that she “was just an innocent

bystander” and that other individuals had lied and “chose[n] to make it look like [she] was

involved” in selling drugs.

¶14. After deliberating, the jury convicted Bumgardner of all three indicted counts. The

circuit court sentenced Bumgardner as a habitual offender and ordered her to serve three

consecutive eight-year sentences in MDOC’s custody without eligibility for probation or

parole. The circuit court denied Bumgardner’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the

verdict or, alternatively, a new trial. Aggrieved, Bumgardner appeals.

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶15. Bumgardner contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support her

convictions. We apply the following standard of review to Bumgardner’s argument:

When reviewing a case for sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. All credible evidence consistent with the defendant’s guilt must be accepted as true, and the State is given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. We will reverse and render the conviction only if all the evidence and inferences, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.

Melton v. State, 415 So. 3d 645, 653 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted).

7 ¶16. Here, the circuit court instructed the jurors of the State’s burden to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that Bumgardner “did knowingly or intentionally and without authority of

law sell or transfer . . . [m]ethamphetamine, in an amount less than 2 grams . . . [t]o another

person . . . .” As Bumgardner asserts in her challenge to the sufficiency of the State’s

evidence, however, she never directly handed the methamphetamine to Blanton on the dates

of the three controlled narcotics purchases. Rather, as Bumgardner correctly notes, Stokes

handed the methamphetamine to Blanton on the date of the first controlled purchase, and then

Gattis handed the methamphetamine to Blanton on the dates of the second and third

purchases. The State therefore proposed, and the circuit court gave, accomplice-liability

instructions on “aiding and abetting” and “accessory before the fact.”

¶17. As the Mississippi Supreme Court has explained,

[u]nder Mississippi law, one who aids and abets another in the commission of a crime is guilty as a principal. An accessory before the fact is one who does something that will incite, encourage, or assist the actual perpetrator in the commission of the crime. Every person who shall be an accessory to any felony, before the fact, shall be deemed and considered a principal, and shall be indicted and punished as such; and this whether the principal have been previously convicted or not. . . . Aiding and abetting traditionally requires the defendant’s presence during the commission of the offense, though that presence may be constructive. But accessory before the fact does not require the defendant’s presence during the commission of the offense.

Williams v. State, 334 So. 3d 68, 73 (¶8) (Miss. 2022) (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted).

¶18. Despite Bumgardner’s statements to the contrary, we find the record reflects sufficient

evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt

the essential elements of the charges against Bumgardner. The jurors heard Edmondson’s

8 testimony as to how the narcotics agents received information about illegal activity in the

vicinity of Bumgardner’s trailer. Both Edmondson and Blanton testified that prior to setting

up the controlled drug purchases, Bumgardner had offered to sell drugs to Blanton. The jury

also heard testimony from Edmondson, Blanton, and Gattis about the three drug purchases

and watched recorded footage of the purchases.

¶19. Blanton testified that during the first controlled purchase, she handed $40 directly to

Bumgardner as payment for the methamphetamine. Blanton stated that Bumgardner then

counted and confirmed the amount of the cash before directing Stokes to give the

methamphetamine to Blanton. The following day, after Bumgardner confirmed that she had

additional methamphetamine to sell, she and Blanton arranged for another narcotics sale.

Blanton testified that during this second controlled purchase, Bumgardner called Gattis and

asked Gattis to complete the sale on Bumgardner’s behalf.

¶20. With regard to the final narcotics purchase, Blanton testified that Bumgardner again

took her money but then stood nearby as Gattis actually handed the methamphetamine to

Blanton. During Gattis’s subsequent testimony, she corroborated Blanton’s account of the

second and third controlled narcotics purchases. Gattis confirmed that she only participated

in the second and third narcotics purchases at Bumgardner’s request. On appeal,

Bumgardner argues that no reasonable juror could believe the testimonies of Blanton and

Gattis regarding their version of events and the extent of Bumgardner’s involvement in the

three controlled methamphetamine purchases. Our caselaw clearly provides, however, that

“it is the duty of the jury to listen to all of the testimony and determine who is a credible

9 witness and whether the evidence supports the crime charged.” Jennings v. State, 311 So.

3d 712, 723 (¶36) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Wolverton v. State, 859 So. 2d 1073, 1076

(¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)).

¶21. Relevant to the circumstances surrounding Bumgardner’s charges, this Court has

previously recognized that

to prove [the] sale of a controlled substance, the State need not prove that the defendant personally placed the substance in the hands of the buyer or that the defendant personally profited from [the substance’s] sale. As long as the jury is given a proper instruction on aiding and abetting, the State need only prove substantial knowing participation in the consummation of a sale or in arranging for the sale. Furthermore, any person who is present at the commission of a criminal offense and aids, counsels, or encourages another in the commission of that offense is an aider and abettor and is equally guilty with the principal offender.

Russell v. State, 296 So. 3d 217, 224 n.7 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted). Viewing the evidence presented at Bumgardner’s trial in the light

most favorable to the State, and considering the circuit court’s instructions on accomplice

liability, we conclude there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable

doubt that on the three specific dates identified, Bumgardner sold less than two grams of

methamphetamine to Blanton. We therefore decline to reverse Bumgardner’s convictions

and sentences on the basis of insufficient evidence.

II. Entrapment Jury Instruction

¶22. Bumgardner also contends that the circuit court erred by refusing to give her proposed

jury instruction on the affirmative defense of entrapment. We review the circuit court’s

denial of Bumgardner’s proposed jury instruction for abuse of discretion. Jones v. State, 382

10 So. 3d 558, 563 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024).

¶23. “Although ‘a defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present [her]

theory of the case[,] this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction

which [1] incorrectly states the law, [2] is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or [3]

is without foundation in the evidence.’” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Clayton v. State,

106 So. 3d 802, 804 (¶6) (Miss. 2012)). “Entrapment has been defined as ‘the act of

inducing or leading a person to commit a crime not originally contemplated by him, for the

purpose of trapping him for the offense.’” Carpenter v. State, 400 So. 3d 493, 500 (¶23)

(Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Hopson v. State, 625 So. 2d 395, 399 (Miss. 1993)). “To

claim entrapment, the person must admit by the person’s testimony or other evidence the

substantial elements of the offense charged.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-1-25(1) (Rev. 2020).

Moreover, anyone raising entrapment as a defense must prove “by clear and convincing

evidence” the following:

(a) The idea of committing the offense was initiated by law enforcement officers or their agents rather than by the person.

(b) The law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the person to commit the offense.

(c) The person was not predisposed to commit the type of offense charged before the law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the person to commit the offense.

Miss. Code Ann. § 99-1-25(2).

¶24. Here, Bumgardner denied that she had ever sold any illegal substance, and she

specifically and repeatedly denied selling methamphetamine to Blanton as charged in the

11 indictment. “[T]o assert an entrapment defense at trial, the statute first requires that a

defendant ‘admit by the person’s testimony or other evidence the substantial elements of the

offense charged.’” Jones, 382 So. 3d at 566 (¶40) (quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 99-1-25(1)).

Because Bumgardner did not admit any wrongdoing, much less “the substantial elements of

the offense charged” against her, the defense of entrapment was unavailable to her. Miss.

Code Ann. § 99-1-25(1). We therefore agree with the circuit court’s finding that

Bumgardner was not entitled to have the jury instructed on entrapment. Accordingly, we find

no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s refusal of Bumgardner’s proposed jury

instruction.

III. Subpoenas Duces Tecum

¶25. In her final issue on appeal, Bumgardner argues that her “rights to present a complete

defense, to confront the witnesses against her[,] and to compulsory process were violated by

the arbitrary refusal to issue her requested subpoenas duces tecum for text [message] records

between Edmondson and Blanton.” Bumgardner asserts that the requested subpoenas

complied with Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b), which states that “[a] subpoena

may, without a motion or hearing, require the production of books, papers, documents[,]

or other objects at the date, time[,] and place at which the trial, hearing[,] or proceeding at

which these items are to be offered in evidence is scheduled to take place.” (Emphasis

added).

¶26. Prior to trial, Bumgardner’s attorneys asked the Lowndes County Circuit Court Clerk

to issue subpoenas to Blanton, Edmondson, and Edmondson’s cellular service provider. In

12 compliance with Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b), each subpoena requested that

the identified “items, documents, or materials” be produced at Bumgardner’s trial before the

circuit court. After the circuit court clerk refused to issue the subpoenas, Bumgardner’s

attorneys raised the matter at a pretrial hearing before the circuit judge. Bumgardner’s

attorneys asserted that the narcotics agents, especially Edmondson, had “targeted and

entrapped” Bumgardner because she previously had contentious interactions with the agents

and had posted about the interactions on social media. Bumgardner’s attorneys explained

that the defense sought access to text messages exchanged by Edmondson and Blanton in the

months leading to Bumgardner’s arrest to locate evidence to support the defense’s theory that

Edmondson had sought to target and entrap Bumgardner.

¶27. After hearing the parties’ arguments, the circuit judge directed Bumgardner’s

attorneys to “file a formal motion in the court file.” The circuit judge stated that the motion

should include the basis for the defense’s request, any “specific exhibit [the defense could]

point to where [the defense] contend[ed] that the State in [its] discovery ha[d] made reference

to those things” that formed the basis of the request, and any relevant caselaw the defense

wished the circuit court to consider in the matter. Despite the circuit judge’s instructions, the

defense never filed a written motion about the subpoenas.

¶28. At several points during Bumgardner’s trial, the defense again raised the matter of the

requested subpoenas. The circuit judge reiterated the response she had given the defense

prior to trial and noted that the defense had failed to file any written motion as instructed.

As a result, the circuit judge concluded there was “nothing [for her] to rule on . . . .”

13 ¶29. We agree with Bumgardner’s arguments on appeal that the circuit court erred by

requiring her to file a written motion before she could obtain the “subpoenas duces tecum for

production at trial” that she requested. The subpoenas that Bumgardner provided to the

circuit court clerk complied with Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)’s

requirements regarding “the production of books, papers, documents[,] or other objects at the

date, time[,] and place at which the trial . . . at which these items are to be offered in evidence

is scheduled to take place.” As a result, Bumgardner was entitled to seek the issuance of the

requested subpoenas from the circuit court clerk “without a motion or hearing . . . .” MRCrP

33(b).2

¶30. We conclude, however, that the circuit court’s error in requiring Bumgardner to file

a motion prior to seeking the issuance of the subpoenas was ultimately harmless. As we have

previously explained,

Harmless-error analysis prevents setting aside convictions for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. We do not reverse a conviction for an erroneous evidentiary ruling unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party, or in other words, unless the ruling prejudiced the accused. Thus, where it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict, we need not reverse the conviction.

Wallace v. State, 411 So. 3d 1143, 1154-55 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted).

¶31. Here, Bumgardner’s attorneys informed the circuit court that they sought to obtain the

2 If Bumgardner had instead sought to have the specified items and materials produced at a time other than her trial, then Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 would have required her to first obtain a court “order pursuant to this Rule authorizing the issuance of such subpoena[s].” MRCrP 33(c)(1).

14 text messages exchanged between Edmondson and Blanton to support the defense’s theory

that Edmondson and other narcotics agents “targeted and entrapped” Bumgardner. As the

State asserts, Edmondson and Blanton testified at trial and were subject to cross-examination

by the defense about any communication they exchanged prior to Bumgardner’s arrest.

Indeed, the record reflects that Bumgardner’s attorneys conducted rigorous and thorough

cross-examinations of the State’s witnesses, including both Edmondson and Blanton.

¶32. More importantly, though, as addressed above, Bumgardner repeatedly denied selling

methamphetamine to Blanton. Even if Bumgardner had obtained copies of the text messages

exchanged between Edmondson and Blanton, her adamant denials of any wrongdoing, much

less of “the substantial elements of the offense charged” in her indictment, foreclosed her

ability to successfully assert the affirmative defense of entrapment. See Miss. Code Ann.

§ 99-1-25(1). We therefore conclude that the circuit court’s error in requiring Bumgardner

to file a written motion for the requested subpoenas duces tecum for production at trial was

ultimately harmless and fails to require the reversal of her convictions and sentences.

CONCLUSION

¶33. Because we find no reversible error, we affirm Bumgardner’s convictions and

sentences for the three counts of selling less than two grams of methamphetamine.

¶34. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, EMFINGER AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR.