I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - KA- 0 1 0 3 1 - S CT M A R C U SO ’N E A L F L O W ER Sa /k /a T U P A C a /k /a M ARCUSFLOW

ERS v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 13/ 2009 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR CU S D. GOR DON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: NEW TON COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : ERI N E. PRI DG EN G EO RG E T. H O LM ES AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : S T E P HANI E B. W OOD DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: M AR K S HE L DON DU NC AN NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 01/ 24/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. M ar cus O ’ N eal Fl ow er s w as convi ct ed of m ur der f or f at al l y s hoot i ng C har l es W as h. H e cl ai m s thatthe j ury’ s ve r di ctw as a gai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence and a sk s fo r a n e w trial. H e b e liev e s h e is e n tit led to su c h re lief b e c a u s e th e re w e re c o n flicts betw een the S t at e’s evidence and h i s evidence, and the credi bil i ty of t he S t at e’s m ai n w i tness w as cal l ed i nt o ques t i on. Fl ow er s ’ s ar gum ent s ar e w i thoutmer i t . E vi dent i ary c onf l i ct s and

### 2

cr edi bi l i ty i s s ues ar e ques t i ons f orthe j ury, notgr ounds f ora new tr i al , a nd the j ury’ s ver di ct is n o t ag a in st th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e . T h e re fo re , the c o n v ictio n o f M a rc u s F lo w e rs is af f i r m ed. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶ 2 . C h a rle s W a sh w a s sh o t a n d k ill e d o n A p ril 7 , 2 0 0 8 , in a n a re a o f L itt le I-2 0 R o a d in N ew t on C ount y, M i s s i s s i ppi , cont ai ni ng f i ve tr ai l erhom es . D eputy J er emy Pi ns on w as the f i r s tof f i cer on the scene a nd di s cover ed W as h’ s body i n the dr i vers eatof a truck thathad cr as hed i nt o a tr ee ne arthe tr ai l er s . W as h had bee n s hotm ul t i pl e t i m es i n the che s tand f ace and w as dead w hen D eputy Pi ns on arr i ved. Soon af t erD eputy Pi ns on arr i ved, D avi d H i l t on ca m e o u t of o n e o f th e trail ers. H il ton told D ep u ty P inso n that W ash w as d rop p ing h im o ff athi s m other - i n- l aw ’ s tr ai l erw hen a man i n dark cl othi ng and a s ki m as k came outof t he w o o d s a n d b e g a n firin g a t W a sh . H ilt o n sa id h e d id n o t se e th e sh o o ter ’s f a c e b u t co u ld i dent i f y the s hoot eras M ar cus Fl ow er s bas ed on the s hoot er ’ s voi ce. H i l t on l at eradmi t t ed t o pol i ce thathe ha d a gr eed s ever al w eeks e ar l i ert o he l p Fl ow er s ki l l W as h buti ns i s t ed that he had nothi ng t o do w i th t he shoot i ng on A pr i l 7, 2008. T he day a f t erthe s hoot i ng, t he pol i ce r ecove r ed a w hi t e s ock, an A i rJ or dan t enni s s hoe, and a w hi t e t ank- t op s hi r tf r om t he cr i m e s cene . D N A evi dence w as notobt ai ned f r om the s hoe orthe sock, butFl ow er s w as determ i ned t o b e t he m aj ori ty D N A con tri bu t or t o the w hit e t ank -t op shirt . T he po l i ce al so r ecove r ed Fl ow er s ’ s cel l phone fr om the s cene . Fi nal l y, the pol i ce obt ai ned conf l i ct i ng s t at ement s f

r om s ever al peopl e r egar di ng Fl ow er s ’ s w her eabout s the ni ghtof the s hoot i ng. ¶ 3 . B a se d o n th is e v id e n c e , F lo w e rs w a s c h a rg e d w ith W a sh ’s m u rd e r. A t tria l, th e S tate puton thi r t een w i tnes s es and ent er ed thi r t een e xhi bi t s . T he mosti ncr i m i nat i ng t es t i m ony

### J. C. Wa sh i s not re late d to t

he vi ctim , Charl es Was h. 1 

### 3 w as pr ovi ded by D avi d H i l t on; M ary C ooper ; S ant ana G r i f f i n, and C edr i c W al ker ; R andy P at ri ck and M ark Spen ce; D r. B o S cal es; and J. C . W ash (“J . C . ”). H i l t on , the o nly w i tness 1 t o the cri m e, ident i f

i ed Fl ow er s as the s hoot er . C ooperpl ace d Fl ow er s atthe cr i m e s cene thi r ty m i nut es bef

or e t he shoot i ng. G r i f

f i n and W al kercl ai m ed thatFl ow er s had arr i ved at thei rapart m entnearthe cr i m e sc ene s hor t l y af t erthe s hoot i ng w i thouthi s s hi r torcel l phone and i n need of

a r i de. Pat r i ck and Spenc e es t abl i s hed thatFl ow er s ’ s cel l p ho ne w as r ecovered nearthe cr i m e s cene the day a f t erthe s hoot i ng, and D r . Scal es t ol d the j ury t hat Fl ow er s w as t he m aj ori ty contr i but orof D N A on the w hi t e t ank- t op s hi r tf ound neart he cr i m e s cene . Fi nal l y, J . C . t es t i f i ed that , w hen he drove by Fl ow er s ’ s hom e s oon af t ert he s hoot i ng, no car s w er e ther e and no one appea r ed t o be home. ¶4. T he d efense r espon ded by dis credi t i ng H i l t on and est abli shi ng an ali bi f or Flow ers . S p e c ifica lly , the d e fe n se fo c u s e d o n tes tim o n y th a t H ilt o n p re v io u sly h a d a g re e d to h e lp Fl ow er s ki l l W as h and ques t i oned the pl aus i bi l i ty of H i l t on’ s s t ory bas ed on the l ocat i on of W as h’ s guns hotw ounds . W i th re gar d t o Fl ow er s ’ s al i bi , hi s gi r l f r i end and s i s t ert es t i f

i ed thathe w as hom e al l ni ghtand hi s nei ghborcl ai m ed t o have s een hi m i n hi s dr i vew ay ar ound the t i m e of

the s hoot i ng. T he j ury r eturned a gui l ty ver di ct , and Fl ow er s f i l ed a mot i on f

or jud g m en t no tw ith stan d ing the v erd ict, o r in th e a lt ern ati v e fo r a n ew tr ial . T h e tri al co u rt deni ed Fl ow er s ’ s m ot i on, and he appeal ed.

### Wea thersp oo n v. S tate , 56 So. 3d 559, 564 ( Mis s. 2011). 2

### Id. at 564. 3 

### Jen kin s v. Sta te , 947 So. 2d 270, 278 (Mi ss . 2006) (quoting Ba ker v. State , 802 So. 4 

### 2d 77, 81 ( Mis s. 2001)) . Bu sh v. S tate , 895 So. 2d 836, 844 (Mi ss . 2005) (quoting Am iker v. D rug s Fo r Less, 5 

### Inc ., 796 So. 2d 942, 947 (Mi ss . 2000) ). Jenki ns , 947 So. 2d at

274. 6 

### 4 L A W A N D A N A L Y S IS ¶5 . T h e so le issue o n a p p ea l i s w h ethe r the tri al c o u rte rron eo u sly d en ied F low ers’s m ot i on f ora new tr i al . A m ot i on f ora new tr i al s houl d be gr ant ed onl y i n “exc ept i onal cas es i n w hi ch the evi dence pre ponder at es heavi l y agai ns tthe ver di ct . ” W hen r evi ew i ng 2 the d enial of a m oti on fora new tri al, the e v iden ce m ustbe v i ew ed in the li gh tm ost f avor abl e t o the v e r di c t . A v e r di c ts ho ul d be u ph e l d un l e s s i t“ i s s o c on tr a ry t o t he 3
overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence thatt o al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” T hi s occur s onl y i f r eas onabl e men coul d nothave f ound the 4 d e fe n d a n t gu ilty b a se d o n the ev id e n c e w h e n itis v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ict. 5 ¶6. A s del i neated above, the evi dence agai nstF l ow ers con si st ed o f eyew i t ness t es t i m ony f

r om H i l t on, t es t i m ony f r om s ever al corr obor at i ng w i tnes s es , i ncl udi ng Fl ow er s ’ s f

r i ends and l aw - enf

or cementof

f i cer s , and D N A e vi dence . C onvi ct i ons have been a f f i r m ed bas ed on s i m i l arevi dent i ary s uppor t . I n Je nkins , O r l ando Jenki ns w as i ndi ct e d f

orthe mur de ro f

Andr e Barne s . A ttr i a l , W i nt e r s , who a l s o w a s i nd i c t ed f or 6

### Id. 7

### Id. 8 

### Id. 9 

### Id. at 278. Seeals o Ro ss v. Sta te , 954 So. 2d 968, 1016-18 (Mi ss . 2007) . Fl ower s 10 

### re li es on Ro ssin hi s brie f. Howeve r, in Ro ss , thi s Cour t uphe ld Ros s’ s c onvic ti on and the tria l cour t’ s deni alof his motion f

or a new tri aldes pit e i ts conc er ns ove r the c ontradi ct ory and inconc lus iveevi denc e, noting that “ [a ] bse nt f rom there cord ar e the myri ad nuance s and subtleim pre ss ions from whi ch j uror s we igh c re dibi li ty, and this Cour t m ust be wary of enc roa ching on thepec uli ar provinceof the j ury. ” Ro ss , 954 So. 2d at 1016-18. 5 B arnes ’ s m ur der , t es t i f i ed thathe s aw Jenk i ns ki l l B arnes . T hr ee otherw i tnes s es 7 i m pl i cat ed J enki ns by pl aci ng hi m in B ar nes ’ s company t he ni ghtof the murde rand sayi ng he h ad h i dd en h i s gun and the clothes he w as w eari ng that night . T he S t at e al so 8 puton e vi dence thatB arnes ’ s bl ood w as f ound on J enki ns ’ s s hoe. T he j ury convi ct ed 9 J enki ns of

m ur der , and thi s C our taf f i r m ed, f i ndi ng thatthe ver di ctw as notagai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . A s i n Je nkins , the S t at e here supp ort ed it s case 10
w i th e ye w i tne s s t e s t i mony f r om a b i a s e d thi r d p a r ty, t e s t i mony f r om se ver al corr ob orat i ng w i tnesses, and D N A evidence. In r eview i ng the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost f avor abl e t o the v e r di c t , we f i nd tha tthe v e r di c ti s s up po r t e d by the wei gh to f t he evi dence . Fl ow er s ’ s convi ct i on i s af f i r m ed. CO NC L US I ON ¶7. Subst ant i al evi dence s uppor t ed the j ury’ s ve r di ctc onvi ct i ng Fl ow er s of m ur der f or k il li n g W ash . T h e o n ly w itn ess to th e crim e iden ti fi ed F low ers a s the sh o o ter. F low ers’s cel l phone and a s hi r tcont ai ni ng hi s D N A w er e f ou nd n ear t he cr i m e s cene . T w o of Fl ow er s ’ s f

r i ends t es t i f

i ed thatFl ow er s had s how n up att hei rapar t m entshort l y af t erthe

### 6

s hoot i ng w i thouta s hi r torhi s c el l phone . A pol i ce of f i cert es t i f i ed thatFl ow er s ’ s carw as notathi s hom e s hor t l y a f t erthe s hoot i ng. A nd w hi l e Fl ow er s di d pr es ente vi dence that cont r adi ct ed t he St a t e ’ s the ory o f the c a s e , tha tdo e s no te nt i t l e hi m t o a ne w tr i a l . The j ury w as r equi r ed t o w ei gh al l the evi dence pr es ent ed t o i t , j udgi ng the w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i ty of e ach w i tnes s ’ s t es t i m ony. T he j ury r es ol ved the conf l i ct s i n f avorof the St at e, and i t s ver di cti s notcont rary t o t he w ei ghtof the evi dence . T her ef or e, the convi ct i on of

M ar cus Fl ow er s f

orthe murde rof

C har l es W as h i s af

f i r m ed. ¶ 8 . CONVI CT I ON OF M URDE R AND S EN TE NCE OF LI F E I M P RI S ONM EN T I N TH E C U STO D Y O F TH E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AF F I RM ED . S EN TE NCE TO RU N CONS EC UT I VE LY TO THE S EN TE NCE I M P OS E D I N C AU S E NO . 0 8 - CR - 0 6 6 - NW- G. W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O LP H , P. JJ . , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.