IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2019-KA-00652-COA ASHTON MYOTA THOMPSON APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/07/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COLLINS COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: NEW TON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ABBIE EASON KOONCE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: STEVEN SIMEON KILGORE NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 03/31/2020 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: EN BANC. LAWRENCE, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. On Septem

ber 7, 2018, Ashton My ota Thom pson (“Thom

p son”) was f

ound guilty

of
accessory af

ter the f act to m urder in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-1-5 (Rev. 2 014). Thom

pson was sentenced to twenty y ears in the c ustody of the Mississippi Departm ent of Corrections, with two y ears suspended and eighteen y ears to serve, f ollowed by two y ears of reporting probation af ter release. Thom

pson f i led a “Motion f

or New Trial,”

w h ich was denied. Thom pson a ppealed, arguing that there was insuf f icient ev i d e n c e t o sustain the jury ’ s guilty verdict and that the g uilty verdict was against the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence. Finding no error, we af f irm

.FACTS

¶2. A rivalry between two gangs in N ewton, Mississippi, led to the shooting a nd death of Jam arcus Townsend on March 17, 2017. Richard Lof ton, Jordan My ers, Robbie Chapm an, Devon Thom

pson, Robert Bender, and Darron Thom as w ere af f iliated w ith t h e “Black Disciples” gang. Thom

pson was related to several of the g a n g m e m bers as f ollows—her brother was Devon, he r husband was Thom as, and her f ather was Bender. W itnesses testif i ed that Thom

pson’s b rother, husband, and f ather were all m em

bers of the Black Disciples. T ow n s e n d a n d two individuals n am ed D errick Glass and Josh W alker were af f iliated with the “Vice Lords” gang. ¶3. At Thom

pson’s trial, the State called Lof t o n a s a w i t n e s s . L o f

t o n testif ied that Thom a s and Bender had high rankings in the Black Disciples and of ten gave orders. Lof

ton explained that t here h a d been several recent shootings where Townsend, the v i c t i m, had targeted various m em

bers of the B lack Disciples, including Thom as and Bender. A Black Disciples m eeting was held, and it was determ ined that Townsend had “to go.” On March 17, 2017, around 11 p.m ., Lof ton, M y ers, and Chapm an decided to go looking f o r Townsend. The three m en g ot i nto Ly ndale Jones’s black SUV and headed to Glass’s h om e o n Tillm an Street in Decatur, Mississippi, to f i nd Townsend. According to Lof ton, there were f

our guns in the c ar—Jones had a sawed-of f 12-gauge s hotgun and a “.22 revolver,” Lof ton had a .22 caliber rif

le, and Thom as had g iven My ers a 9 m m gun. J ones p assed o f f t he 12-gauge shotgun to Chapm an bef

ore they m ade it to Tillm a n Street. Lof ton testif ied they drove past

2the house where Townsend w as, and, as they were turning around, som eone started shooting

at them f rom the house. Lof

ton, Cham

pm an, and Jones all returned f ire bef ore driving away . ¶4. Lof

ton testif ied that they did not know if a ny one had been h it at the house. The m en
went straight to Thom

pson’s house to regroup because that was the plan and “that’s where
every body was.” They s oon f

ound o u t f

rom social m edia that Townsend had been killed. During t his tim e , Thom

pson was in the house, and, a ccording to Lof ton, they told her what they had done. T hom as told them to go to Meridian, Mississippi, to get away f r om the police and the Vice Lords. Thom pson also told the m en that they h ad to g et away f rom her house. So Thom pson and her f

r iend (and co-indictee) Jessica P owers drove Lof ton, M y ers, and Chapm an to Meridian. Powers t estif ied that T hom

pson told her “the boy s in the truck” had “killed som ebody .” During the drive, T hom pson’s m o ther c a lled her and s aid that h e r brother Devon h a d been p i cked up by the N e wton Police Departm ent f or the m urder. Thom p son told them that they needed to get out of t he car because s h e d id n o t w a n t her brother to take the f

all f or som ething they

did. Thom as instructed Thom pson to take t hem

to a h ouse on 7th Street called “The Field,” where Black Disciples m em bers m e t. Lof

ton and My e r s stay ed at that location f o r twelv e d a y s u n t i l they were arrested by U.S. Marshals. Chapm an lef

t af ter three or f

our day s and was later arrested. ¶5. At trial, Investigator Bruce McCraw t estif ied that T hom

pson did n ot assist in locating Lof ton, My e rs, o r Chapm an. E ventually , Lof ton, Chapm an, My ers, and Jones were charged with f irst-degree m

urder. My ers and Lof

ton pled guilty t o conspiracy to c o m mi t mu r d e r ,

3Powers pled guilty a s a n accessory af ter the f act to Townsend’s m

urder, and the cases against Chapm an and Jones were pending at the conclusion of Thom pson’s trial. ANALYSIS 1. There w as sufficient evidence to support Thom pson’s con v i c t i o n. ¶6. At trial, Thom

pson m oved f

or a directed verdict at the c l o se o f the State’s case and requested a perem

ptory jury instruction, which were both denied. In her post-trial m otion, she argued that the t rial court erred in deny ing both requests. On appeal, Thom pson argues
t h a t the court erred i n deny ing her m otion f or a directed verdict. W e apply a de n o v o standard of review to challenges to the suf f iciency o f the e vidence. Sanford v. State , 247 So. 3d 1 2 42, 1244 (¶10) (Miss. 2018). I n d o i n g so, “we view the evidence in the light m ost f avorable to the State and decide if r a t i o n a l jurors could have f ound the State proved each elem ent of

the crim e.” Lenoir v. State , 222 So. 3d 273, 279 (¶25) (Miss. 2017). The issue is not “whether we think the State proved the elem ents. Rather, we m ust decide whether a reasonable juror c ould rationally say t h a t t he State did.” Poole v. State , 46 So. 3d 290, 293-94 (¶20) (Miss. 2010). ¶7. The indictm ent i n this case, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated s ection 97-1-5, charged Thom

pson wi t h being an accessory af ter the f act to the m

urder of Townsend by assisting Lof

ton and My ers “to avoid a rrest a f ter the com m ission of a f

elony , at a tim e when”
T h om pson “well knew that” Lof ton and My ers “had com m itted the crim e of m urd e r , b y transporting” Lof

ton a nd My ers “to locations o utside o f Newton County

. . . with the intent

4to enable” Lof ton and My ers “to avoid arrest and prosecution f or the m urder of ” Townsend.

“ [ A]n accessory -af

ter-the-f act has been def

ined as ‘ a person assisting one who has c om p l e t e d the com m ission of a f

e lony to avoid being apprehended, arrested, c onvicted, etc.’” Bailey

v. State , 960 So. 2d 583, 590 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Chase v. State , 6 45 So. 2d 829, 851 (Miss. 1994)). The elem ents o f t h e crim e of accessory af ter the f act are: (1) “a

co mpleted f

elony has been com m itted; (2)

. . . the accused concealed, received, relieved, aided or a s sisted a f

elon, k n owing that such person had com m itted a f elony ; and (3)

. . . such aid or assistance was rendered with intent to enable such f e lon to escape or avoid arrest, trial, conviction or punishm ent af t er the com m ission of such f elony .” Harris v. State , 290 So. 2d 924, 925 (Miss. 1974). ¶8. Here, the State p resented the jury with Lof ton’s testim ony describing the conf lict on Tillm an Str e e t a n d T hom pson’s knowledge of Townsend’s death, Powers’s testim ony concerning Thom

pson’s knowledge and a id given to the m en in v o l v ed, and Investigator McCraw’s t esti m o n y concerning Thom pson’s lack of assistance to the investigation—

nam ely , how it took twelve day s f or law enf

orce me nt to locate and arrest t he individuals involved at the place where Thom pson helped hide them

. ¶9. During Lof

t on’s direct exam ination, the State asked the f ollowing: Q: Mr. Lof

ton, y ou’re currently in a j ail unif orm , prison unif

orm ; is t hat right? A: Yes, sir. Q: W hat’s the reason that y ou’re in jail?

5A: I’m in jail f o r m urder. Q: Okay . Now, did that arise out of the sam e incident a s the case we’re here on today ? A: Yes, sir.
In a ddition, the jury heard Lof ton describe the conf

lict between t he Black Disciples and the Vice Lords, the s t a y a t T h om pson’s trailer, and t he trip to the Meridian saf e house. Specif ically , Lof

ton testif i ed t hat Thom

pson was at her house when t hey r eturned and that the m en t o ld her they had shot som eone on T i llm a n Street. T he jury also heard Powers’s testim o ny that distinctly described Thom p son’s knowledg e t

h a t L o ft o n , M y e r s , a

n d C hapm an had “killed s om ebody .” Further, Powers detailed t he t rip to the Meridian saf e house. Powers also c orroborated Lof

t on’s testim ony t hat Tho mp s o n ’s husband, Darron, w as who told Thom p son w here to take the m en in Meridian af t er the shooting. Investigator McCraw told the jury that Thom

pson gave no a id t o t he police throughout the e ntirety of their investigation. Finally , her a ctions di d aid or assist those involved to a void arrest because those individuals were arrested by U.S. Marshals m any d ay s af ter the killing. ¶10. Reviewing the evidence i n the light m ost f avorable to the State, rational jurors could have f ound that the State proved each elem ent to convict Thom p s on. Accordingly , the evidence w as suf

f icient to support Thom

pson’s conviction, and the trial court did not com m it

error in deny ing Thom

pson’s m otion f

or a directed verdict and perem ptory j ury instruction. 2. The verdi c t w as not against the o verw helm ing w eight of t he evidence.

6¶11. Thom pso n also asserts that the verdict was against the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence. A ruling on a m oti o n f o r a new trial challenging the w eight of the evidence has

a dif f erent standard of review than a c h a l lenge to t he legal suf f iciency of the e vidence. Daniels v. State , 107 So. 3d 961, 963 (¶12) (Miss. 2013). W e will reverse the trial court’s denial of a m otion f

or a new trial o nly if the trial court abused its discretion b y doing so. Id

. Our role as an a

ppellate court i s to “ view the evidence in the l i g ht m ost f avorable to the verdict and disturb the v erdict only when it is s o c ontrary to the overwhelm i ng w eight of the evidence that to allow it to stand w ould sanction a n unconscionable injustice.” Little v. State , 233 So. 3d 288, 289 (¶1) (Miss. 2017). “W e d o not reweigh evidence. W e do not a ssess the witnesses’ credibility

. And we do not resolve conf licts between evidence. Those decisions belong solely

to the jury

. ” Id

. ¶12. The jury here had am ple evidence to consider. The jury heard testim ony f rom Lof ton, who adm itted b eing involved i n the incident t hat killed Townsend. Thom p son knew the m en had killed som eone and then transported them to saf e t y af terward to avoid arrest. Further, Powers conf

irm ed the e ssential details recited by Lof t on i n overhearing a telephone call by Thom p son about the k i l l i n g and law enf orcem ent investigating Townsend’s death. Yet, Thom p son kept driving the i ndiv i d uals involved and placed them in another city at a gang saf e house to assist them in a voiding arrest. The jury judged each witness’s c redibility and ultim ately determ ined that Thom pson was guilty of accessory af ter the f act t o the m

urder of Townsen d

. Viewed in t he light m ost f avorable to the verdict, we cannot f ind that it was

7contrary to t h e o v e r w h e l ming weight of t he evidence o r that allowing it to stand would

sanction an unconscionable justice. Theref o re, the judgm ent is af

f irm ed. ¶13. AFFIRMED. BARNES, C.J., C ARLTON AND J . WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, T INDELL AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. McDON A L D , J . , CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN P A RT WITHOUT SEPARATE W RITTEN O PINION. M cCARTY, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY WESTBROOKS, J.; McDONALD, J., JOINS IN PART. McCARTY, J., DISSENTING: ¶14. Because the State f ailed to prove the def

endant knew th a t a c o mp l eted f elony was

com m itted or that she was aiding a f e lon, I respectf

u lly dissent. ¶15. There are two c ritical requirem ents t hat m u st be m et when proving an accessory -af t erthe-f act case. First, the State m ust prove that there w as a “com pleted f elony

. . . com m itted.”
Y oung v. State , 908 So. 2d 819, 826-27 (¶17) ( Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Second, the State m ust prove that the def

endant knew “that the person had com m itted a f elony .” Id

. ¶16. First of

f , the State f

ailed to prove a com

pleted f elony had been com m itted. The proof

at trial was that Thom

pson was told Lof

ton “shot som e o ne o n Tillm an Street.” However, as the m ajority notes, L of

t on told the jury at trial that som e one star t e d s h o o t i n g at t hem f irst, while they were driving down t h e s t r e e t a n d turning around. It was only a t that point that gunf ire was returned. ¶17. W h ile this m ay h ave been a killing under Mississippi law, it s ounds incredibly close

to the def inition of j ustif

i able hom icide. See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-15(1)(e) (Rev. 2014)

8(def

ining t he killing of a p e rson as justif iable “[ w ]hen com m itted by any p erson in resisting
any attem pt unlawf ully t o kill such person or to com m it any f el o n y upon him

. . . in any occupied vehicle . . . ”). This was not proof of a com pleted f e l ony , but the opposite. ¶18. The m ajority quotes Lof ton as say ing, “ I ’m in jail f or m urder.” Although he m ade that

statem ent at trial, it is both f actually and legally

inaccurate. Lof

ton later clarif

ied he plead guilty t o “ c o nspiracy t o com m it m urder.” This f

u rther h urts the State’s case since “[ c]onspiracy is a com

p l e t e o f f e nse in i tself

, distinct f

rom the com m ission of the crim e
contem plated by the conspiracy ,” and “[ t]he of f ense is com

plete without showing an overt
act in f urtherance of the conspiracy .” Davis v. State , 485 S o. 2d 1 055, 1057-58 ( Miss. 1986). Lof ton’s guilty plea f

or conspiracy t o c o mmi t mu rder neither proves that a m u rder was

com m itted nor satisf

ies the m issing elem e n t f r om t he S tate’s p roof

. The State’s f

ailure to prove these elem ents requires reversal. ¶19. Reversal is also required bec a u s e t h e State f ailed to prove m ens r ea. The Suprem e Court has held in c ases of this ty pe that “[ a]n indispensable elem e nt of the crim e c harged

. . . is that [ the def

endant] acted with guilty knowledge.” Matula v. S tate , 220 So. 2d 833, 834 (Miss. 1 9 69). Quoting a treatise on crim inal law, the Suprem e Court opined, “ Ordinarily one is not guilty of a crim e unless he is aware of the e x istence of all those f acts w h ich m ake his conduct c r im inal. W ithout guilty knowledge c rim inal intent cannot exist.” Id

. Ultim ately , “[ t]o render one l iable as an accessary af ter the f act he m ust have had actual knowledge , at the t im e h e relieved or assisted the principal, t hat t he l atter had com m itted a f elony ; . . . such

9knowledge must be personal as distinguished from constructive .” I d . (em phasis added). ¶20. In contrast to this s e t t l e d l a w , t h e S t a t e’s m eager proof was a h odgepodge of constructive theories and inf erence s . T h e S t ate did not r ely on what Thom pson’s state of mi n d w o u l d h a v e been at the tim e she helped Lof ton, as the State should have. Instead, it relied on the legal realities by tim e of trial. As s et o ut above, Thom pson could have believed she was helping som eone t hat had not com m itted a f e lony a t all. Powers even testif ied that the def endant believed her brother was innocent. The State was required to prove her m ental state at the tim e of

her actions. But the State f ailed to prove this at all. ¶21. T h e majority m entions t hat two groups of m en were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e B l a c k Disciples and the Vice Lords. The evidence showed these m en shot at each other and that

som e o f t hem had gone to p rison o ver it. T here was no p roof t he def endant in this case was in either group, and certainly no proof showed she ever pulled a trigger. The State also f ailed

to p rove that she knew a f elony had b een com m itted and that s he h a d t h e requisite m ental intent to aid som ebody who had com m itted a f elony

. Under o ur law, she h as com m itted no crim e at all. For those reasons, her conviction m ust be reversed and rendered. WESTBROOKS, J., J OINS T H I S OPINION. McDONALD, J., JOINS THIS OPINION IN PART.

1 0