IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2018-KA-00872-COA MICHAEL HOLLAND APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/28/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W . ASHLEY HINES COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: LEFLORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ALI MUHAMMAD SHAMSIDDEEN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA W AKELAND BYRD DISTRICT ATTORNEY: W I LLIE DEW AYNE RICHARDSON NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 02/04/2020 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE BARNES, C.J., GREENLEE AND McDONALD, JJ. BARNES, C.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. One m an was killed and three others were seriously injured i n a drive-by shooting on Highway 82 outside Itta Bena, M ississippi. Jacarius Key s p rovided a statem ent to law enf orcem ent, im

plicating h im se l f a n d f

our other m en i n t he s hooting—Sedrick Buchanan, Michael Holland, Arm and Jones, a nd Jam es E arl M cClung Jr. In July 2016, all f ive m en

were co-indicted f

o r the m urder a nd attem

p ted m urders of the v ehicle’s occupants. On
Decem ber 28, 2016, Key s was killed. The rem aining co-indictees were t ried together in the Lef lore Count y C i r c u i t C ourt in May 2017. Af ter a f o ur-day trial, the jury f

ound Hollandguilty of second-degree m urd e r a n d o f three counts of attem pted f irst-degree m

urder. 1
Holland w as sentenced to s erve f orty y ears in the custody of the Mississippi Departm ent of Corrections (MDOC) f

o r the second-degree m

urder conviction and three term s of t hirty y ears in the MDOC’s custody f

or his other convictions, with all sentences set t o run consecutively

. He appeals his convictions, and f inding no error, we af

f i rm . STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. At 11:00 p.m . on A ugust 15, 2 015, D ’A landis Love, Perez Love, and their cousins, Kelsey Jennings and Ken-Norris Stigler, 2 were t raveling west on Highway 82 in “Munchie”
Brown’s red Pontiac w hen a light-colored Tahoe sped past them , spray ing b ullets into the car. D’Alandis was killed, and Perez, Jennings, and Stigler were seriously injured. ¶3. Key s and his lawy er went to the Lef lore County Sherif

f ’s O f f ice to g ive a s tatem ent regarding the incident. The chief investigator, Bill S taten, interviewed Key s o n Septem ber 2, 2015, but af

ter the video equipm ent f ailed during that i nt e r v i e w , Investigator Staten re-interviewed Key s , again with counsel, o n Septem ber 3. K ey s said that he was driving the Tahoe. He also im

p licated Buchanan, Holland, Jones, a nd McClung in the shooting. In July 2016, all f

ive m en were indicted f

or “acting a l o n e o r in concert with each other or others”

1 Hol l a nd ’s co -d ef

en d an ts— M c C lu n g , B u ch an an , an d Jo n es— w ere als o found gui l t y an d h av e ap p ealed th eir co n v i ctio n s an d sen t en ces. In itially , th ese ap p eals w ere d o ck eted b y th e S u p rem e C o u rt C lerk u n d er case n u m b er 2 0 1 7 -T S -1 053. A ft e r assig n m e n t , th is C o u rt en tered an o rd er k eep in g M cC lu n g ’s ap p eal u n d er case n u m b er 2 0 1 7 -K A -1 0 5 3 -C O A an d assig n in g a n ew case n u m b e r to B u ch an an ’s an d Jo n es’s ap p eals.

2 We w ill co llectiv e ly

ref er to all f o u r m en as th e L o v es. 2on one count of deliberate-design m urder in violation of Mississippi C ode Annotated section
9 7 -3-19(1)(a) (Rev. 2014) a nd three separate counts of attem pted m urder i n viola t i o n o f Mississippi Code Annotated sections 97-1-7 (Rev. 2014) and 97-3-19(1)(a). ¶4. Key s was k i lled on Decem ber 2 8, 2 016. Prio r t o t r i a l , t h e d e f e n d a n ts m oved to exclude Key s ’s videotaped statem ent and sever the trial. T h e trial court d enied the def endants’ m otions. Jones, Buchanan, McClung, and Holland were tried bef o re a Lef lore County Circuit Court jury

in May 2017, each represented by his own counsel. ¶5. Matthew Brown, a d e puty with the Lef lore County Sherif

f ’ s Of f ice, testif ied that he

was on patrol on August 15 when he discovered a car on f i re in a f i eld of f Highway 8 2. Deputy Brown h elped Perez get out through the car window, and he also pulled Stigler and D’Alandis out of the vehicle. 3 Deputy Brown radioed f or e m ergency services, an d af ter realizing that it was “not just a car wreck,” he called the sherif f and investigators. ¶6. Staten, the chief investigator, testif i ed t hat he responded t o the scene at approxim ately
12:20 a.m . and approached the Pontiac. Investigator Staten o bserved what h e believed were gunshot w ounds on D’Alandis’s body

. D’Alandis was l ater p ronounced d ead at the scene. 4
The o ther three victim s had already been transported to the hospital. Investigator Staten said he “noticed bullet holes on the d river’s side of t he vehicle,

. . . and along the rear passenger door the driver’s w indow h ad been shot out and there were o ther bullet h oles along that side

3 Jen n in g s w as alread y

o u tsid e o f th e v eh icle.

4 L isa F u n te, a m ed ical ex am in er, testif ied D ’A l an d i s d ied as a resu l t o f m u ltip le g u n sh o t w o u n d s, an d h is m an n er o f d eath w as h o m icid e. 3of the v ehicle.” He took p hotographs and collected evidence, including a num ber of 7.62m m shell casings and one .40-caliber s hell casing recovered within t he im m e diate area of where the vehicle had l e f

t the highway

. The next m orning, af ter the v ehicle had been towed to a

secure location, Investigator Staten retrieved a .40-caliber Sm i th & W esson p istol f rom the Pontiac. M ark Steed, an investigator w ith the Mississippi Bureau of Investigations (MBI), also assisted with the investig a tion and identif ied the handgun that Investigator Staten recovered f

r om the Pontiac. ¶7. Investigator Staten t estif ied that Jasm ine Cage, P erez’s girlf riend, was at the scene of the incident. She to l d a deputy that she knew the people in the car and had witnessed the shooting. Cage w as transported to the Sherif f ’s Of f ice so that Investigator Staten could take her statem ent. ¶8. Am

ber Conn, a crim e scene analy st with the MBI, was accepted as an expert in crim escene investigation. C onn opined that the P ontiac was shot f rom the back toward the f ront

on the driver’s side. D uring her investigation, Conn recovered another .40-caliber Sm ith &
W e sson pistol f

rom the f r ont passenger f

loorboard o f t he P ontiac. Conn testif ied that the gun

was f u lly loaded (one bullet was i n the cham ber), and its saf

ety was locked when s he f ound it. ¶9. Starks Hathcock was a ccepted as an expert in f irearm s and tool-m arks identif ication.
Exam i ning b oth .40-caliber pistols recovered f rom the Pontiac and com paring them to the .40-caliber bullet recovered f rom Perez’s head, Hathcock was able to c onf irm that the bullet

4was not shot by either of t he guns recovered f rom the Pon t iac. He a lso exam i ned the .40- caliber pistol recovered when Buchanan was stopped a f t er his arrest, while out o n b o n d

. Hathcock testif

ied that he could not positively determ i n e w h e t her that gun had f ired the recovered shell casing; h o wever, t he gun could not be excluded as having done so. Hathcock also testif ied t h at the 7.62m m (.30-caliber) s hell casings recovered f r om the highway could have b een f

i red f r om an AK-47 or SKS—a sem iautom atic assault rif le “designed f

or war.” However, he could not l i n k t h e . 30-caliber shell casings recovered to a s pecif ic weapon. Hathcock did te s t if

y that the projectile jackets recovered f rom the Pontiac bore sim ilar characteristics to the bullets recovered f rom D’Alandis’s right chest and his right leg. ¶10. B e n t ravious “ Munchie” Brown testif ied t hat on t he ni g h t o f t h e i n c i d e n t , h e h a d loaned his car, a red Pontiac Grand Prix, to the L oves. He testif i ed that Perez drove the vehicle and that the group headed to a club at around 11:00 p.m . Jasm ine Cage t estif ied that

on the night of the shooting, she had f ollowed Perez and the others i n Brown’s car to “m ake

sure Perez was not g oing to the club.” She saw the Pontiac ahead of her on Highway 82 and

saw a Tahoe or Yukon p ass her o n the right. Af ter testif y i ng t hat she could not see who was in the Tahoe/Yukon and did not know the color of the vehicle, Cage was rem i nded about her

statem ent given to Investigator Staten. Cage thereaf ter testif ied that she had told Investigator
Staten she thought t he vehicle was gold and that she s aw Jones, K e y s , D a v id Reedy , and Holland i n the vehicle. She thought Jones was in the f ront passenger seat, a nd Holland was seated in the b ack on the passenger side. On cross-exam i nation, C age conf irm ed that she

5knew Buchanan and that she did not see him in the vehicle that night. ¶11. Cage a lso testif

ied she told Investigat o r S t a t e n t h a t R e edy had been driving the Tahoe/Yukon and that Key s was in the backseat on t he driver’s side. Af ter t he T ahoe/Yukon passed her, she saw “ sparks l ike f ire” a f ar distance i n f

ront of her. Cage called Perez’s f riend to ask him whether gunshot looks like f ire a t nighttim e, and he s aid that it did. Cage continued to t he M oroccan Lounge, but when t he Pontiac f ailed t o s how up, she turned around and headed back to G reenwood. On h er way , she saw the Pontiac in a ditch; so she stopped her car and approached the scene. ¶12. T w o of the victim s, Stigler and Perez, testif ied that the shooters were traveling i n a beige or gold Tahoe-ty

p e vehicle and that Jones and Holland were t he ones who shot bullets

at them

. 5 Perez said h e saw Jones in the Tahoe with a “ baby a ssault rif le,” som e tim es called
“a m ini-Draco.” Both Stigler and Perez saw Holland with a p istol as the Tahoe passed them

. Stigler also testif

ied that he saw Jones shoot Perez in the top of the head. ¶13. Although Perez testif ied that he could not positively identif y any one besides Holland and Jones in the vehicle, h e a cknowledged that he had identif ied other people, including Reedy and Key s, i n his s tatem ent af ter t he incident. 6 Perez explained that he identif ied the people in the Tahoe because h e s a w “ a l l o f t h e m ” riding in the vehicle every day , and he

5 A lth o u g h Jen n in g s testif ied , h e co u ld n o t id e n tif

y an y o n e in th e T ah o e . 6 I n v estig ato r S taten testif ied th at h e th o u g h t P e r ez h ad also id en tif i e d B u ch an an , th o u g h h e w as n o t s u re. D ef en se co u n sel sp ecif

ically q u estio n e d P erez ab o u t w h eth er h e h ad id en t if

ied B u ch an an , b u t P erez said h e n ev er s aw B u ch an an an d , o th er th an Jo n es an d H o llan d , co u ld n o t recall w h o m h e h ad p rev i o u sly id e n tif ied

. 6thought they were in the vehi c l e t h a t n i g h t. But Perez said that af ter he thought about it

m ore, he realized that he nev e r a c t ually saw any o ne other than Jones and Holland. On

cross-exam ination, Perez also t estif ied that he thought Reedy was in t he Tahoe because Reedy used to own the Tahoe. ¶14. Because Key s was not available at trial, his videotaped statem ent was a d m itted into evidence and was play ed f or the j ury . 7 Key s said that he was driving the gold Tahoe on the night of the shooting. He stated that Holland and Jones were on the passenger side, McClung

w a s i n t h e r e a r seat on the driver’s side, and Buchanan was sitting in the third-row seat. 8 Key s, Buchanan, Holland, Jones, and M c C l u ng had been at Holland’s house that evening, and, around 11:00 p.m ., they lef t in Key s’s Tahoe to go to the Moroccan Lounge. ¶15. Key s said J ones brought his AK-47 with him , w hich was described as bein g “ s h ort with a long m agazine.” Key s did n ot kn o w J o n e s h a d the gun until “he f irst upped it” (m eaning until Jones began shooting). Key s also said that Jones had the AK-47 that night because “he alway s had it.” Key s was unsure whether any o ne else had a weapon. At the end of his s tatem ent, Key s said that no one had a gun except Jones. Key s said that there had been

no previous discussion of a ny retaliation against the Loves. However , when questioned about Jones, Key s said that Jones had said “day s earlier” that he needed to get one of them

7 T h e j u ry w as n o t to ld th a t K ey s h ad b een k illed

. 8 In co m p ariso n , C ag e an d P erez id en tif ied R eed y a s d riv in g th e v eh icle, w ith K ey s in th e b ack seat. In h is statem en t, K ey s said th at h e w as d riv in g an d th at R eed y w as n o t w ith th em . A lth o u g h R eed y w a s q u estio n ed , th ere w as ev id en ce th at h e w as in B atesv ille n ear th e tim e o f

th e in cid en t

. 7(the Loves) because they (the Loves) “had got som e of their f riends.” As t hey drove down Highway 82, they approached a car, and Jones called out that it looked like the Loves in that

car. 9 As they passed t he vehicle, according to Key s, J ones rolled down the window, leaned

out the window, and opened f ire with his AK-47. As soon as J ones started shooting, Jones told him , “Go, go, go,” and Key s sped up to get away

. ¶16. Key s said that Holland m ade a phone call to a rrange f or som eone to g et rid of the car. Key s drove to Moorhead, Mississippi, and a m echanic that Holland knew m et them in a grey Nissan. The m echanic took Key s’s Tahoe, and Key s and the others lef t in the Nissan. The Tahoe was never recovered. ¶17. Af ter switching vehicles, they went to a Best W ester n h o t e l in Greenwood. W hen they got to the hotel, Jones brough t h i s g un in with him

. H olland and J ones later lef t together, but Jones returned a short while later without his gun. Key s, Buchanan, J ones, and McClung spent t he n i ght at the Best W estern. The next m orning, J o nes arranged f or his own ride hom e, and Key s, Buchanan, and McClun g got a ride together. Key s stay e d with his

m other f or several day s af

t er the s hooting until he got a lawy er and t urned him s elf in. W hile Key s was at his m other’s hom e in Tennessee, Jones contacted him f rom a p hone t hat Key s did not r ecognize and s aid he was in Chicago. W hen Key s gave his statem e n t on Septem ber

9 K e y s s a i d th at h e d id n o t reco g n ize th e car. P erez, h o w ev er, said in h is p retria l statem en t th at K ey s w as stan d in g o u tsid e b ef o re P erez an d th e o t h ers h ad lef t f o r th e clu b

. Wh en q u e stio n ed ab o u t t h at statem en t at trial, P erez testif ied th at h is statem e n t w as w ro n g an d th a t h e m ean t

to say it w as “M u n ch ie” (B r o w n ) stan d in g o u tsid e , n o t K ey s.

83, 2015, he had not spoken w i t h a n y o n e e l se involved in the incident. However, af ter providing his statem ent to law e nf orcem ent, Key s approached Jones’s lawy er and inf orm ed
him that h e had given an incrim inating s tatem ent. Buchanan turned h im self in on Septem ber 18, 2015, and Holland was arrested shortly thereaf ter. ¶18. Af ter the State rested, def

ense counsel f

or Buchanan, Holland, Jones, and McClung

m oved f or directed verdicts, which the trial court denied. None of the def endants testif

ied

or presented any other evidence. The jury f o und each of the def

e ndants guilty o f v a rious of f enses. Relevant to this appeal, the jury f ound H olland guilty o f second-degree m urder and of t hree counts of attem

pted f irst-degree m

urder. For the second-degree m urder conviction, Holland was sentenced to serve f o rty y ears in the custody of the MDOC. He was sentenced

to s erve t hree term s of thirty y ears in the MDOC’s custody f or his rem aining convictions, with all sentences to be served consecutively

. On June 8, 2017, Holland f i led a m otion f

or judg me n t notwithstanding the verdict or, i n the alternative, f o r a new t rial, which the trial court denied. ¶19. Appealing his c o n v i c t i ons, Holland lists several i ssues in the “Statem ent of Issues” portion of his appellant’s brief

. However, wit h respect to f o ur of the issues, he cites no autho r i t y and provides no argum ent. 10 See Arrington v. S tate , 267 So. 3d 7 53, 756 (¶8) (Miss. 2019) (“The law is well established that points not argued in the brief on appeal are

10 T h ese i ssu es are w h eth er th e trial co u rt erred (1 ) in d en y in g th e m o tio n t o ch an g e v en u e; (2 ) in f

a ilin g to g r an t an o rd er ref u tin g a n y g an g af

f i liatio n ; (3 ) in allo w in g w itn ess in tim id atio n ; an d (4 ) in f

ailin g to ex clu d e K ey s’s v id eo tap ed statem e n t.

9abandoned a nd waived.”). Theref ore, we will lim i t our review t o the rem aining issues argued by H olland: (1) whether the c ourt erred in d en y ing his m otion to sever the trial; and (2) whether the evidence was insuf f icient to support t he verdict or, i n t h e alternative, whether the verdict was against the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence.
DISCUSSION
I. Denial of the Motion to Sever ¶20. Holland asserts that the trial court erred in deny ing his m otio n t o s ever. The only
argum ent he m akes on this issue, however, is his citation to f actors a trial court m ay consider
in determ ining whether to grant a m otion to sever, as outlined by the Mississippi Suprem e Court in Duckworth v. State , 477 So. 2d 935, 937 (Miss. 1985). Holland has not applied this authority to the f

a cts o f the case; t heref

ore, h e h as waived this issue o n appeal. See Doss v. State , 956 So. 2d 110 0 , 1 1 0 3 ( ¶ 8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (“[ T]he f ailure t o . . . m ake any

m eaningf ul argum ent constitutes a waiver of any issues w h i c h ma y have been properly presented to this Court f

or our review.”). ¶21. Nevertheless, w e f ind the trial court did n ot err i n deny i ng H olland’s m otion to sever the trial. “Def

endants jointly indicted f or a f e l ony are not e n t i tled t o separate trials as a

m atter of right.” Maggett v. State , 230 So. 3 d 722, 7 27 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “[ J]oint trials generally

serve the interests of

justice by

avoiding inconsistent verdicts and enabling

a m ore accurate a ssessm ent of relative culpability

— a dvantages which som etim es operate to the def endant’s benef

it.” Id. (quoting Cavett v
. State , 717 So. 2d 722, 727 (¶30) (Miss.

1 01998)). Unif orm Rule of Circuit and County C ourt P ractice 9.03, w hich was applicable when Holland and his co-def

endants were tried in May 2017, 11 states: The g ranting or r ef

using of severance o f d ef

endants in cases not involving the death penalty shall be in the discretion of the trial judge

. T h e c o u r t m ay , on m otion of the state or def

e ndant, grant a severance of of f enses whenever:
1. If bef

ore trial, it is deem ed appropriate to prom ote a f air determ ination of the def endant’s guilt or innocence of each of f ense . . . . URCCC 9.03. In reviewing the denial of a m o tion f or severance, we consider two criteria: “(1) whet h e r t he testim o ny of o ne co-def endant t ends to exculpate that d ef endant at the
expense o f the other d ef

endant and (2) whether the balance of the evidence i ntroduced at trial tends to go m ore to the guilt of one def endant rather t han the o ther.” Hayes v
. State , 168 So. 3d 1065, 1074 (¶34) (Miss. Ct. A pp. 2013) (internal quotation m arks a nd citation om itted). Thus, u nder this test, as articulated in Duckworth , 477 So. 2d at 937, H olland m ust show that he was prejudiced by

the trial court’s ref

usal to grant his m otion f or severance. ¶22. Regarding the f

i rst f a c t o r , H o l l a n d d o e s n o t a r g u e that K ey s ’s s tatem ent was exculpatory , and none of the r em aining def endants testif

ied at trial. Theref

ore, the f i rst f actor weighs in f

a vor of a joint t rial because one def endant’s t e s t i mo n y c ould n ot be used to exculpate him self at the expense of the other co-def e n dants. The second f

actor also weighs
in f a v or of a joint trial. Both J ones and Holland were identif i ed at trial as shooters, and all of the def

endants were charged with acting i n concert wi t h r e s p e ct to the shooting.

11 T h e M ississip p i R u les o f C rim i n al P ro ced u re d id n o t b eco m e ef f ectiv e u n til Ju ly 1 , 2 0 1 7

. 1 1Accordingly , we f ind the c ou r t d i d not abuse its d iscretion in d eny i ng the m otion f or

severance. II. The Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence ¶23. Holland c laim s that the evidence is insuf f icient to su p p o r t t h e verdict “because the testim o ny of the w itnesses [ w as] uncorroborated by a ny credible e v i d e n ce and is in f act d i s c r e d i t e d by m

uch of the evidence presented a t trial.” Holland f urther argues that the testim o ny by the victim s and Cage was “unsupported,” “ c o n t radictory ,” and “inconsistent with one another” and that there w as no phy sical evidence that Holland was guilty of seconddegree m urder and attem

pted m urder. ¶24. W h en addressing a challenge to the suf f iciency o f the evidence, “the question is not whether t his Court ‘believes t hat the evidence a t trial established guilt bey ond a r easonable doubt

. . . [ but] whether, a f ter viewing the evidence in the light m os t f avorable to the prosecution, a ny rational trier of f act could have f

o u n d t he essential elem ents of the crim e bey ond a reasonable d o ubt.’” McCarty v. State , 247 So. 3d 260, 268 ( ¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (em

phasis om i tted) (quoting Bush v. Stat e , 8 9 5 S o . 2d 836, 843 ( ¶16) (Miss. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Little v. State , 233 So. 3d 288, 289-90, 291-93 (¶¶1, 14-21) (Miss. 2017)). A challenge t o the weight of the evidence, on t he other hand, “ i s separate and distinct f rom a challenge to the l egal suf f iciency of the e vidence, in that it seeks a new trial.”
Brown v. State , 269 So. 3d 1 2 62, 1264-65 (¶9) ( Miss. Ct. App. 2018) ( internal quo t ation

m ark om itted) (quoting Bradford v. State , 102 So. 3d 312, 316 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)).

1 2Viewing the evidence in the light m ost f avorable to the verdict, we will not disturb a verdict

on appeal unless i t “is so contrary to the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Id

. ¶25. Holland was c onvicted of second-degree m u rd e r a n d o f t hree counts of attem pted

m urder. Second-degree m

urder i s def

ined a s “[ t]he killing of a h u ma n being without the authority of law

. . . in the com m ission of an act em inently dangerous to others and evincing

a depraved heart, regardless of hum an lif e , although wi t h o u t a n y prem editated design to ef f ect the death of any particular i ndividual

. . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(b) (Rev. 2014). “The Suprem e Court has described conduct ‘evincing a depraved h eart’ as ‘gr a v e recklessness m anif

esting utter disregard or indif f erence to a resultant creation of em inent danger to hum an lif

e.’” McCarty , 24 7 S o . 3 d a t 269 (¶27). W ith regard to the attemptedm urder charges, the State had to prove bey ond a reasonable doubt, b ased on the indictm ent, that Holland “willf

ully , u nlawf

ully , purposely , knowingly and f e loniously d esign[ ed] and endeavor[ ed] or attem

pt[ e d ] to kill [ Perez, Stigler, a n d J e nnings]

. . . without t he authority of law and not in necessary self def ense.” ¶26. During c ross-exam ination, Investigator Staten ackno w l e d g e d t h a t K e y s d i d n o t indicate in his statem ent that Holland was a shooter: Q. Did Mr. Key s say

that Mr. Holland was shooting?
A. Mr. Key s indicated in his statem ent that the only person he knew was shooting was [ Jones]. Key s did s ay , however, that Holland was seated on the passenger side of the Tahoe. Cage
1 3also testif

ied that she thought she saw Key s , Reedy , Holland, and Jones in the Tahoe when they passed her and that Holland was seated in t he back seat of the Tahoe on t he passenger side. ¶27. It was t he testim ony of two of the victim s, Stigler and P erez, that provided evidence
Ho l l a n d w a s f

i ring a gun at the Pontiac. Stigler t estif ied that Holland “had a pistol in his hand shooting, t oo.” Perez, th e driver of the Pontiac, said that Jones and H olland were “[ h]anging out the window” with guns in their hands and that he had no doubt who was in the Tahoe and who had shot at him and his f r iends. 1 2 Q. Do y o u have any d oubt in y our m ind about who was in the g old Tahoe and who shot at y our car?
A. No, m a’am

. Q. No doubt whatsoever? I need y ou to say it out loud.
A. No, sir. Q. W ho shot y ou?
A. Depending on what kind of gun they said w as used and the bullet they took out m y h ead, it was a .40[ -]caliber and the handgun I seen Michael

12 H o llan d co n ten d s th at “[ a] lth o u g h ev id en ce w as p resen ted w h ich sh o w ed th at a h o m icid e to o k p lace, th e S tate p resen ted ab s o lu tely n o e v i d e n ce th at c o rro b o rated th e testim o n y th at M r. H o llan d m u r d ered o r attem

p ted to m

u rd e r a n y o n e a s req u ired b y M ississip p i law

. ” T o th e ex t en t H o l lan d su g g ests th at h e w as n o t th e s h o o ter w h o k illed D ’ A lan d is, u n d er th e acco m p lice th eo ry o f liab ility , th e j u r y co u l d c o n v i c t H o l l a n d o f m u rd e r as a p rin c ip al ev en if it b eliev ed an o th e r d ef en d an t k illed D ’A lan d is. S ee M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -1 -3 (R ev . 2 0 1 4 ) (p ro v i d in g th at a n y p erso n w h o is an accesso ry t o a f e lo n y b ef o re th e f act “sh all b e d eem ed a n d co n sid ered a p r in cip al, an d sh all b e in d icted an d p u n ish ed as su ch ”). 1 4Holland holding. So that’s who shot m e.

Q. W hat about who shot at y our car?
A. Both of

them , Arm a nd Jones and Michael Holland. The phy sical e vidence retrieved f rom the scene o f incident included

. 4 0-caliber shell casings, and a .40-caliber bullet was recovered f rom Perez’s head. ¶28. On review, this Court is required to acce p t a s t r u e the evidence that supports the verdict. Smith v
. State , 180 So. 3 d 771, 773 (¶11) (Miss. C t. App. 2 015). In t h i s c ase, we f ind no inconsistency or contradict ion in the evidence as Holland claim s. Except f or Jennings, who could not conf irm the identity o f any one in t h e Tahoe, the witnesses to the shooting said Holland w as in the Tahoe seated on the passenger side of the car behind Jones.
Two of the v ictim s said H olland had shot at them

. Key s a l so provided evidence through his

statem ent that Holland wa s i n s t r u m ental in getting rid of the Tahoe af ter the shooting. 13

13 A s n o ted , H o llan d h as f ailed t o c ite an y au th o rity o r arg u m en t co n cern in g th e ad m issib ility o f K ey s’s statem en t. R eg ard less, to th e e x ten t th at th e statem en t su p p o rts H o llan d ’s co n v ictio n s, w e f in d n o erro r in th e trial c o u rt’s ad m issio n o f K ey s’s statem en t ag ain st H o llan d u n d er M ississip p i R u le o f E v i d e n ce 8 0 4 (b ) (6 ), w h ich co d if ies th e d o ctrin e o f f o r f eitu re b y w ro n g d o in g . S ee D a vis v. Wa sh in g to n , 5 4 7 U .S

. 8 1 3 , 8 3 3 (2 0 0 6 )

. R u l e 8 0 4 (b )(6 ) “ap p lies o n ly w h en th e d ef en d an t ‘en g ag ed o r a cq u iesced in w r o n g d o in g th at w as in ten d ed to , an d d id , p ro cu re th e u n av ailab il i t y o f t h e d e claran t as a w itn ess.’” G iles v. C a lifo rn ia , 5 5 4 U .S

. 3 5 3 , 3 6 7 (2 0 0 8 ) (q u o tin g F ed

. R

. E v i d

. 8 0 4 (b )(6 )). “T h e p arty o f f erin g th is e v id en ce m

u s t m ak e th is sh o w in g b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f th e ev id en ce.” U n i ted S ta tes v. G u rro la , 8 9 8 F .3 d 5 2 4 , 5 3 4 (5 th C ir. 2 0 1 8 ). In th is c ase, th e S tate p ro v id ed s u rv eillan cev id eo ev id en ce sh o w i n g H o llan d ch asin g K ey s w ith a g u n m ere m o m e n t s b e f o r e K ey s w as sh o t an d k ill e d

. F u rth e rm o re, S erg ean t B a n k sto n , th e i n v e stig ato r f o r K ey s’s m

u rd er, testif i ed t h at b o t h H o llan d an d B u ch an an w ere s u sp ects i n K e y s ’s m u rd er an d th at H o llan d receiv ed a tex t f

ro m B u ch an an o n Jo n es’s c ell p h o n e a f t er B u ch a n an w as a r

rested a n d in j ail f o r K ey s’s m

u rd er. B ased o n th ese circu m s t an ces, w e f in d th e t rial co u rt co u ld reaso n ab ly 1 5Holland’s wit n e s s - c r e d i bility argum ent was a m atter f or the j ury , who is “the ultim ate decision-m aker a s to w hat weight and worth” t o give said testim ony . M cCarty , 247 So. 3d at 270 (¶32). ¶29. Finding that there was suf f icient evidence t o s u

pport the verdict and t hat t he verdict

was not against the overwhelm ing weight of t he evidence, we af f i rm Holland’s convictions and sentences. ¶30. AFFIRMED.
CARLTON AND J . W I L S O N , P . J J . , G R E E N L E E , W E S T B R O O K S, TINDELL, LAWRENCE AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. McCARTY, J., CONCURS IN PART AND I N THE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPI N I O N . McDONALD, J . , C O N C U R S I N R E S U L T O N L Y W I T H O U T S E P A RATE WRITTEN OPINION.

in f er, b ased u p o n a p rep o n d eran ce o f th e ev id en ce, t h at H o llan d k illed K ey s to p r ev en t h im f ro m testif y in g an d /o r w a s p art o f

a co n sp iracy

to d o so . 1 6