IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2015-KA-01234-COA STANLEY LEE BRADLEY A/K/A STANLEY BRADLEY APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/23/2015 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT B. HELFRICH COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: ERIN ELIZABETH BRIGGS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA W AKELAND BYRD DISTRICT ATTORNEY: PATRICIA A. THOMAS BURCHELL NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO TW ENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND TO PAY A $2,500 FINE DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED – 04/25/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND FAIR, JJ. BARNES, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. A j u r y s i t t i n g b e f o r e the F orrest County Circuit Court f ound S tanley Lee Bradley guilty of aggravated assault. Bradley appeals, claim ing the jury ’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence

. H e a l s o c l aim s that the prosecution m ade an im proper “send a

m essage” closing argum ent. Finding no error, we af f irm

. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¶2. As of m i d-February 2014, Bradley and C assandra Baker ha d b e e n d a ting f or seven
y ears. Cassandra’s brother, David Baker, h ad been living with them f or approxim ately one

m onth. On February 15, 2014, a n u mb e r of people v isited their house to celebrate Cassandra’s birthday

. Af

ter every one else lef

t at approxim ately 9 p.m . , Cassandra and David rested on sep a r a t e couches in the living room . Bradley was not ready to end the evening. Although he had been d

rinking, B radley lef

t to drive a round and visit som e f riends. Bradley told Cassandra that he would “be right back.” ¶3. Bradley “ ended up at [ Cassandra’s] sister’s house,” where he continued to drink until
h e f e l l a s l e ep on t he couch. W hen he woke up “af ter two o ’ c lock,” h e had a num ber o f

m issed c alls f

rom Cassandra. Cassandr a c a l l e d h im a gain while he was driving hom e. Bradley a nswered and explained that he was on his way hom e f rom her sister’s house. Cassandra hung up. W hen s he c alled again, he did not answer because he w as nearly hom e. Af ter parking a nd listening to m usic f or “m ay be t hree to f

ive m inutes,” Bradley went inside. ¶4. It is undisputed that Bradley and David g o t i n t o a f ight. It is a lso undisputed that Bradley stabbed D avid m ultiple tim es with a pocketknif e. Other necessary details w i l l be discussed below. David went t o the hospital, where he was treated f or one stab wound to his lower side 1 and f

o ur s tab wounds to his upper back. Bradley w as arrested and s u bsequently charged w ith aggravated assault. At trial, the prosecution called David, Cassandra, and the police of f icer who responded to Bradley ’s 911 c all f r om a neighbor’s house. B radley chose

1 D av id ’s m ed ical reco rd s w ere n o t in tro d u ced in to ev id en ce, b u t h e d es c r i b e d a su rg i cal p ro ced u re to e n s u re th a t h is b o w els h ad n o t b een p erf o rated

. H e rem ain ed in th e h o sp ital f o r at least f

o u r d ay s. 2to t estif

y af ter the prosecution r ested its case-in-chief

. Ultim ately , the jury f

o u n d B r a dley guilty , and the circuit judge sentenced him to twenty y ears in the custody of the Mississippi Departm ent of

Corrections. Bradley

appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. Whether the verdict is contrary to the w eight of the evidence. ¶5. Bradley argues that the circuit court erred when it denied his m o tion f o r a n ew trial, because the jury ’s v e rdict is c ontrary to the o verwhelm ing weight of t he evidence. A n appellate court “will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the o verwhelm ing weight of the evidence that to allow it t o stand would sanction an unconscionable i njustice.” Bush
v. State , 895 So. 2d 836, 844 (¶18) (Miss. 2005). W e m ust “view the evidence in the light

m ost f avorable to the verdict,” and we m ust af f irm unless “[ t]he trial court . . . abuse[ d] its discretion in deny ing a new trial[ .]” Id . at 844-45 (¶19). ¶6. T o p r o v e a g gravated assault, the State generally h as to prove bey o nd a reasona b l e doubt that a “def

endant (1) attem

pted to cause or purposely or knowin g l y c a u s e d bodily injury to another (2) with a deadly weapon.” Duke v. S tate , 146 So. 3d 401, 405 ( ¶16) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2 0 1 4 ) ( citing Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-7(2)(a)(ii) (Supp. 2013)). I t is undisputed that Bradley purposely s t abbed David with a pocketknif e m ultiple tim es. B ut since Bradley successf ully requested a self

-def ense i n s truction, the prosecution also had to prove that he did not act in necessary

self -def ense. I d . at 405-06 (¶16). ¶7. The jury heard testim ony that Cassandra a nd Bradley were arguing b ecause he lef t on her birthday , she was not able to get in touch with him f or hours, and he did not c om e back

3hom e until well af ter 2 a .m . Bradley testif ied t hat while he was in th e b e d room , he was
say i ng that Cassandra did not “m ake [ any ] m otherf ----- sense,” and that her concerns were
“nonsense” and “dum

b s---.” Cassandra testif

ied t hat she “shut down” and g ot quiet because Bradley m ade her f

e el “intim idated.” ¶8. According to David, Bradley was “ outraged,” “wild,” a nd a “ l oose cannon” that night, and he had never s een Bradley a ct that way . 2 David also said that Bradley was “f ussing” at Cassandra, and he was “talking loud [ and] hollering.” Although Bradley testif ied that he was
not angry when he got hom e, given t he testim ony to t h e contrary a nd t he circuit judge’s instruction that the jurors could “draw such r easonable inf erences f rom t he evidence as seem justif i ed in light of [ their] own experiences,” the jury could certainly have c oncluded otherwise. ¶9. It is undisputed that David eventually spoke up a nd injected h im self in the situation. The jury could have concluded that Bradley was angry ab o u t D a v i d ’ s involvem ent; especially since Bradley t estif

ied that he told David that he would “say any thing [ he] want[ ed] to in this

m otherf -----,” and told David n ot t o get involved in his relationship. It is undisputed that the resulting v erbal e x c h ange becam e phy sical, and B r adley stabbed David m ultiple tim es. Bradley testif

ied t hat David attacked him f i rst. But D avid testif

ied that he was still ly ing on

a couch when Bradley suddenly c harged f rom the bedroom and attacked him

. Cassandra also testif i ed that Bradley

ran into the living room while David was still on the couch. ¶10. Bradley ’s testim ony was inconsistent regarding w h en h e got o ut his k nif e and stabbed

2 B rad ley a lso testif

ied th a t h e h a d n ev er h ad a p ro b lem w ith D a v id b ef o re th at n ig h t. 4David. According to Bradley , David started the f ight when he “scooped [ Bradley ] up” and “drove” him

onto one of

the couches in the living room . Initially , Bradley testif ied that he got out his knif

e and s tabbed David only a f t er David began choking him

. B ut during crossexam ination, Bradley testif ied: “ W hen [ David] t ook m e of f m y f eet, [ and] h ad m e in the air, bef ore we could l and on the couch because when I h eld him [ be]cause I’m in the air[ ,]

. . .

. [ t]hat’s when I pulled m y knif e. And by the time I landed on the couch, t hat’s h ow he got the stab in his side .” (Em phasis a dded). Later during cross-exam ination, Bradley testif ied that “[ w]hen [ D avid] swooped [ him ] up of f [ his] f eet, that’s when [ he] stabbed” David. ¶11. T o sum m arize, the jury could have f ound t hat Bradley ’s v ersion of event s w a s n o t credible because he f

irst s aid he stabbed David only af ter being choked, he later said he stabbed David af

ter they landed o n the c ouch but bef o re h e w as choked, and he f inally said he stabbed David bef

ore they even lande d o n t h e couch. Given D avid’s and Cassandra’s testim o nies that Bradley charged and attacked David f i rst, David’s testim ony that Bradley

was hiding one of his hands behind his b ack bef ore their altercation, and Bradley ’s inconsistent version of events, the jury could have concluded that Bradley i nitiated the f ight, and that he had arm ed him self bef ore the f ight began. 3

3 T h e p ro secu tio n in tro d u ced B rad ley ’s k n i f e in to ev id en ce, b u t it w as n o t tran sm itted w i th th e a

p p e llate reco rd

. S

ee M .R .A .P

. 1 1 (d )(1 )(iii) (“[ P ] h y sical ex h ib its[ ,] o th er th an d o cu m en ts, sh all n o t b e tran sm itted b y th e t rial co u rt clerk u n less t h e clerk is d irected to d o so b y a p arty o r b y th e clerk o f t h e [ M ississip p i] S u p rem e C o u rt.”). S o ld u n d er th e b ran d “T ac F o rce,” it w a s d escrib ed as a “p o ck et k n if e . ” O f f i cer Jarro d S m ith o f th e H attiesb u rg P o lice D ep a rtm e n t testif ied th at h e r e co v ered th e k n if e f ro m B rad ley ’s p o ck et. It is reaso n ab le to co n clu d e th at it w o u l d h av e b een n ecessary f o r B rad ley to u n f

o l d o r o p e n it b ef o r e h e stab b e d D a v i d

. T h ere w as n o testim o n y reg a r d in g w h eth er B rad ley co u ld h av e o p en ed th e k n if

e w i th o n e h an d , o r w h e th er i t w o u ld h av e b een n ecessary f o r h im to u se b o th h an d s. 5¶12. The circuit court instructed the jurors to “ use [ their] g ood com m on sense and sound

honest judgm ent in considering and weighing the testim ony of each witness who

. . . testif ied
in this case.” “ [ An appellate court] will not pass upon t he credibility of witnesses and, where the evidence justif

ies a verdict, it m

ust be accepted as h aving b een f ound worthy of belief

.”
Jones v. State , 95 So. 3d 641, 6 47 ( ¶20) (Miss. 2012) (citation and internal q uotations m arks

om itted). “[ T]he m e m

b ers of the jury act as the f inders of f

act.” Brown v
. State , 764 So. 2d 463, 4 67 ( ¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). “They are c h a r g e d t o listen to the evidence, observe

t he dem eanor of the witnesses, and decide t he issue of the credibility of the witnesses and what weight to give to any particular piece of

evidence.” Id

. ¶13. Bradley n otes he l ef t the house and c alled 911, D a v id was going t o c hase him out of the house bef

ore Cassandra i ntervened, and he w as c ooperative when em ergency responders arrived. B ut the jury could have reasonably decided that Bradley ’s and D a v i d’s behavior af ter the altercation was outweighed by the evidence t hat B radley attacked David f irst. And the j u r y ’s verdict is not contrary t o the w eight of the evidence s im ply because David was conf ronted with what seem ed to be a m e dical record – the docum ent was not introduced into evidence

– ref

lecting that David had told a m edical provider that he “ w itnessed [ Bradley ] arguing a nd f

ighting w i t h [ C a ssandra,] and [ he] jum ped on [ Bradley ] and choked him .” David testif

ied that he did not rem em ber say i ng t hat. Even if D a v i d h a d g i v en a prior inconsistent statem ent, t hat would not prevent the j ury f rom de c i d i ng that he was m ore credible than Bradley

. See id

. at (¶10). “ The jury ’ s discretion in c hoosing whether to accept all or part of a witness’s testim ony is unf e ttered.” McIntosh v. State , 749 So. 2d 1 235, 1241

6(¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).

¶14. Viewing the evidence in the light m ost f avorable to the verdict, the jury c ould have reasonably f

ound Bradley guilty o f aggravated assault. Allowing t he jury ’s v erdict to stand does not sanction a n unconscionable injustice. It f ollows that the circuit judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied Bradley ’s m otion f or a n ew trial. A ccordingly , this issue is

m eritless.
II. Whether the prosecution used a “send a m e ssage” closing argum ent. ¶15. According to B radley , the prosecution m ade im proper “ s end a m essage” com m ents during its closing argum ent. Out of the re ma r k s that B radley highlights, the f ollowing

com m ents are the only ones that resem ble a “send a m essage” argum ent: [ W hen a disagreem ent] goes bey ond [ a ] n o r m al argum ent, t ussle, f i ght, or som ebody wrestling in the living room , there has to be a level o f accountability [ , be]cause once w e m ove past that point where t here is no level of accountability and a person can be stabbed in the back . . . f ive tim es, and we can’t evaluate that to determ ine what the f acts a r e, [ then] we’re in a society that w ould have a signif

icant am ount of problem s . . . . [ J]ustice

. . . has to com e if we want to live in a society [ ,] in a town, in a city , in a c o untry that’s f air - - that every

body f eels saf e.

. . . . That’s t hat norm a l f

am ily dispute that crosses that line that cannot be okay in a f u n c t i onal s ociety

. It sim ply can’t. Good c i tizens have to s ay we’re n o t going to have that m ess in our society

. ¶16. As a threshold m atter , w e n o t e t h a t there was no objection to any portion of the prosecution’s initial or rebuttal closing argum ent. Consequently , this i ssue is procedurally barred. Jackson v. State , 1 74 So. 3d 2 32, 238 (¶17) (Miss. 2015). An appellate court will

o n l y f i n d plain error under circum stances where the c o m m ents at issue w ere “ s o

7inf

lam m atory that the trial judge should have objected on his own m otion.” McCoy v. State , 147 So. 3d 333, 344-45 (¶29) (Miss. 2014). ¶17. An appellate c ourt “m ust determ in e w h e t h e r t h e natural and probable ef f e ct of the
im p roper argum ent create s a n u n just prejudice a gainst the accused resulting in a decision
inf luenced by the prejudice so created.” Id

. at 345 (¶29). G uided by jury instructions, jurors

m us t d e c i d e w hether the prosecution presented evidence that the accused is guilty of a charged crim e . Grindle v. State , 1 3 4 S o. 3d 330, 347 (¶71) (Miss. Ct. A pp. 2013). A prosecutor m ay not encourage jurors to reach a guilty verdict t o send a m essage to the public

or other potential c rim inals, or “reach a verdict f o r the p urpose of m eeting public f avor.” Id

. at 3 47-48 (¶71). T hus, even in the absence of an o bjection, reversible error m a y result f rom

a prosecutor’s c losing argum ent that a jury should “[ s]end a m essage to

. . . older, m ore

m ature, crim inals

. . . [ that ‘w]e are not going to let y ou ruin y oung people’s lives

. . . .’” See Payton v. State , 785 So. 2d 267, 270-72 (¶¶9-15) (Miss. 1999) (citations om itted). ¶18. The p rosecutor did not urge jurors to use their verdict to send a m e ssage t o any one. Instead, the p rosecutor argued that the evidence showed Bradley was g uilty , his behavior was
not m erely a f

am ily dispute but unacceptable and unreasonable, and the jury should hold h im accountable. It was p erm issible f or the prosecutor to reiterate the jury ’s duty as set f orth in the jury instructions. See Long v. State , 5 2 So. 3d 1188, 1194 ( ¶20) (Miss. 2011). As such, the c om m ents at issue w ere not i m proper – m

uch less so inf

lam m atory that the circuit judge should have objected on his own m otion. Accordingly , this issue is procedurally barred. ¶19. T H E J U D G M E N T O F T H E F O R R E S T COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT O F CONVICTION O F AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY

8YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, AND TO PAY A $2,500 FINE, I S AFFIRMED. A LL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO FORREST COUNTY. LEE, C.J., IRVI N G A ND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., ISHEE, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND W ESTB R O OKS, JJ., CONCUR. C ARLTON, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.

9