IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2018-KA-00769-COA TANYATTA KINNEL A/K/A TANYATTA TANAY KINNEL A/K/A TANYATTA KINNELL APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/11/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CHARLES E. W EBSTER COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: W . DANIEL HINCHCLIFF ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LISA L. BLOUNT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: BRENDA FAY MITCHELL NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/22/2019 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ. GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Tany atta Kinnel was convicted of conspiracy to com m it a rm ed robbery a nd attem pted

arm ed r obbery , and she wa s a c q u i t t e d of arm ed r obbery

. T he trial court s entenced Kinnel

to serve f ive y ea r s f

o r c o n spiracy and ten y e ars with f ive y ears s uspended f

or attem pted

arm ed robbery , to be served concurrently in the Mis s i ssippi Departm ent of Corrections.
Af ter the denial of h er post-trial m otion, Kinnel a ppealed, claim ing the trial court erred by allowing an investigator to narrate part of a s urveillance video at trial. F inding no reversible error, we af

f irm

.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On October 17, 2016, Derek Phillips picked up B a r r y M c C r a y ( w h o l i v e d i n Mem phis), and they drove to the Horseshoe C asino i n T unica, M ississippi

. Wh e n they arrived at the casino, they shot dice at the craps table. ¶3. At som e p oint during the evening, Phillips noticed a m an ( who was later identif ied as
Cortez W atts) and a wom an (who was later identif i ed a s Tany a tta Kinnel) at the blackjack table behind him

. Phillips’s gam e was going well, a nd Cortez asked him f or a cigarette. As Phillips handed Cortez a cigarette, Phillips said, “[ I am ] a boss.” Then at som e p oint, Cortez disappeared, and Kinnel gave Phillips a napkin with her phone num ber on it. ¶4. Phillips and M cCray lef t the casino around 3 a.m . and stopped at a gas station. W hile they were there, Phillips called Kinnel so she would have h is num ber. Because it was late, Phillips and McCray planned to d r ive b ack to M em

phis. But K innel told Phillips that she had lost a ll of h e r money at the casino and asked if h e would bring h er a Sprite f rom the gas station. So Phillips went i nside the store a nd purchased a S prite, cigarettes, and condom s. Then Kinnel gave him

directions to a nearby

apartm ent com

plex—Kirby Estates. ¶5. W h en t h ey arrived a t t he apartm ent com plex, Kinnel and another m an (who was later identif ied as J avonta W atts) approached Phillips’s vehicle. Javont a s a i d t h at he liked Phillips’s car. And then Kinnel asked Phillips to g et out so that he could give her a hug.
W h en Phillips got out of the vehicle, Cortez appeared a nd said, “You say y ou’re the boss, right? Let m e get t hat m oney y ou just won.” A s kirm ish ensued until Cortez f inally f ell to the ground, pulled out a gun, and shot Phillips i n t h e n e c k. M eanwhile, Javonta took

2McCray ’s cell phone. But McCray was able to run away and c a ll t he police with his other cell phone. ¶6. At trial, Phillips testif ied that if Kinnel had not a sked f or the S prite, “ n o n e o f t h is [ would have] happened.” A nd she was the only reason he went to Kirby Estates. Likewise, McCray testif

ied that t he reason they went to t he apartm ent com plex was because Kinnel told Phillips to com e over. ¶7. Bernadette Logan, captain of investigations f

or the Tunica County S herif f ’s Of f ice, also t estif ied a t t rial. Investigator Logan testif i ed that w hen she arrived at the scene, Phillips

w a s in an am

bulance and t hat she was able to obtain a statem ent f rom McCray

. Then s h e

r e q u e s t e d surveillance f ootage f rom the Horseshoe Casino. Exhibits 1 and 2, whic h contained the f

ootage, were a dm itted into e vidence without objection at trial. And Investigator Logan testif

ied that when she viewed the f ootage, s he observed Kinnel inside the casino. The video was then play ed f or the jury

. ¶8. As the video was play i ng, Investigator Logan t estif ied that the f

o o t a g e a p p e a red to show Cortez and Kinnel. And at another point, Investigator L ogan testif i ed that the f

ootage showed the parking lot of the Horseshoe Casino. At that point, def ense counsel objected to “a running com m entary as to what’s depicted.” Counsel argued “[ t]h e jury i s m ore than

c a p a b l e of looking a t this video.” The court overruled the objection but a llowed f or a continuing objection. ¶9. Then, I nvestigator L ogan t estif ied that the f

o otage s h owed Phillips with a b lack shirt

on at the end of a table. Investigator Logan a lso identif ied M cCray , who was wearing a red

3shirt. T hen the prosecutor asked, “[ A]re y o u a ble to identif y a n y one in this [ part of the video]? ” And Investigator Logan said, “Tany atta Kinnel and Cor t e z Wa t t s .” Finally , the prosecutor asked, “ [ A]re y ou a ble to identif

y any one in this [ part of the v i d e o ] ? ” And Investigator Logan said, “Tany atta Kinnel and Derek Phillips.” ¶10. Investigator Logan testif ied th a t a f

t e r s h e r e v i e w e d the surveillance f o otage, she obt a i n e d a s earch warrant f or Jam es W atts’s apartm e nt at Kirby Estates. 1 According to Investigator Loga n , K i n n e l and Cortez w ere present w hen the warrant was executed on October 18, 2016. Ultim ately , Kinnel, Cortez, and Javonta were developed as suspects. ¶11. O n October 19, 2 0 16, Phillips and McCray w ere prese n t e d w i t h p h o t o l i n e u p s . Phillips identif

i ed Kinnel as the wom an he saw at the casino and at the apartm ent com plex when he got shot. McCray identif ied som eone else. But at t rial, both Phillips a nd McCray identif ied Kinnel as the wom an f rom the casino and the apartm ent com p lex.
DISCUSSION ¶12. Kinnel claim s that the t rial court erred by a l lowing Investigator L ogan to narrate part of the surveillance video while it was being play e d f or the jury

. ¶13. The standard of review f or the adm i ssion o f evidence is abuse of d iscretion. Land v. S t a t e , 1 9 8 S o . 3d 388, 390 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. A pp. 2016). But “[ e]ven if this Court f inds a n

erroneous adm ission

. . . of evidence, we will not reverse unless the error adversely af f ects

a s ubstantial right of a p a rty .” Id

. (quoting Smith v. State , 942 So. 2d 308, 313 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)).

1 In v estig ato r L o g an d eterm in ed th at K i n n e l a n d C o rtez w ere in a relatio n sh ip an d th at Jam es w a s C o rtez’s f ath er. 4¶14. This Court h a s held that any o p i n i o n o f f e r e d b y a l a y witness m ust m eet the requirem ents of Mississippi Rule of Evidence 701. Ratliff v. State , 879 So. 2d 1062, 1064 (¶5) ( Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “ R u l e 7 0 1 p e rm its the introduction of non-expert opinion evidence if ‘(a) the opinion is r ationally base d o n t h e perception of the witness and (b) is helpf u l to the clear understanding of the determ inat i o n o f a f a c t i n issue.’” Id

. (quoting M.R.E. 701). This Court has f urther held:
It is perm issible f

or a witness to narrate video e vidence when t he narr a t i o n sim ply describes what is occurring in the video, but it is im perm issible if

the witness a ttem

p t s t o place his own subjective interpretation of events transpiring in the video based on nothing bey ond the w itness’s own i nspection of the contents of

the videotape.
L a n d , 1 9 8 So. 3d at 391 (¶9) (quoting Gales v. State , 153 S o. 3d 632, 645 (¶41) ( M i s s . 2014)). ¶15. At trial, p rior t o the surveillance video being play ed f or the jury , Investigator Logan testif i ed t hat when s he viewed the f ootage, she o bserved Kinnel i nside the c a sino. Kinnel’s counsel did not object to this testim ony . ¶16. A s the video was play ing, Investigator Logan testif ied that the f

ootage a p p e a r e d t o show Cortez and K innel. And at another point, I nvestigator Logan t estif ied that the f

ootage showed the parking lot of the Horseshoe Casino. At that point, def ense counsel objected to “a running com m entary as to what’s depicted.” C o u n s e l a r g ued, “The jury i s m ore than capable of

looking at this video.” The court overruled the objection. ¶17. Then, I nvestigator L ogan t estif ied that the f

o otage s h owed Phillips with a b lack shirt

on at the end of a table. Investigator Logan a lso identif ied M cCray , who was wearing a red

5shirt. T hen the prosecutor asked, “[ A]re y o u a ble to identif y a n y one in this [ part of the video]? ” And Investigator Logan said, “Tany atta Kinnel and Cor t e z Wa t t s .” Finally , the prosecutor asked, “ [ A]re y ou a ble to identif

y any one in this [ part of the v i d e o ] ? ” And Investigator Logan said, “Tany atta Kinnel and Derek Phillips.” ¶18. Any error in adm itting Investigator Log a n ’ s t e s t i m o ny did not af

f ect a substantial right of Kinnel and was harm less. By the tim e Kinnel’s counsel objected, Investigator Logan had already testif

ied that when she reviewed the surveillance f ootage, s he observed Kinnel in the casino. 2 Addit i onally , Kinnel seem ingly adm its to being at the casino and the apartm ent

com plex. In her brief

, K innel states: “Her only involvem ent was handing a napkin with her telephone num

ber on it to [ Phillips], and directing him to t h e apartm ents. She lef t as the problem s started.” ¶19. Although Invest i g a t o r L o g a n d i d n o t e xplain h ow she was able to identif y the individuals in the surveillance v ideo, Kinnel did n o t object on that basis. Theref ore, that issue is n ot properly b ef

ore us. See Jackson v. S

tate , 935 S o. 2d 1108, 1117 (¶28) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). W hen Kinnel did object, she o bjected to Investigator Logan’s narration of the surveillance video. However, consideri ng the video and testim ony at trial, any error in adm itting Investigator Logan’s t e s tim o ny was harm less. Theref ore, this issue is without

m erit. ¶20. AFFIRMED.

2 T h is C o u rt h as h eld th a t “an y arg u m en t t o ex clu d e th e testim o n y p rio r t o th e o b j e c tio n is p ro ced u rally b a rred .” L a n d , 1 9 8 S o . 3 d at 3 9 1 (¶1 0 ) ( q u o tin g G a les , 1 5 3 S o . 3 d at 6 4 7 (¶4 9 )). 6BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND J. WILSON, P.JJ., TINDELL, LAWRENCE,

McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. WESTBROOKS AND McDONALD, JJ., CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.

7