I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - KA- 0 1 1 8 6 - S CT RODNE Y S

AN DSAN D A QUI DEM ET RI US RHOD ES
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 16/ 2009 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. PRENTI SS GR EENE H AR RELL C O U R T F R O M W H IC H A P P E A L E D : JE F F E R S O N D A V IS C O U N T Y C IR C U IT COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: OFFI CE O F IND I GEN T APPEALS BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES LESL I E S. LEE S HAR ON D. HE NDE RS ON AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY : J EFFR EY A . K LI N G FU SS SCOTT STUA RT DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : HA LDO N J . KI TTRELL NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI S P OS I T I ON: AF F I RMED I N P AR T , RE VE RS E D AND R E N D E R E D I N PA R T - 03/ 03/ 2011 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. DI CK I NSON, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. R obertM cI nni s and R andolph Sands w er e s hota nd ki l l ed i n the f r ontci r cul ardr i ve o f th e C h u rch o f C h ri st ne ar P ren ti ss, M issi ssipp i. R o d n e y S a n d s an d A q u i R h o d es w ere tried a n d c o n v icte d o f m a n sla u g h tera n d m u rd e r, re sp e c tiv e ly ; b o th w e re als o c h a rg e d w ith an d co n v ict ed o f th e a g g rav ated assa u lto f a third v ict im , Jaso n M cN air.2 FACTS ¶2. J as on M cN ai r , Randol ph Sands ( “R andolph”) , and R obert o M cI nni s w er e dr i nki ng, s m oki ng m ar i

j uana, and r i di ng ar ound Pr ent i s s , M i s s i s s i pp i , and the s urr oundi ng c o m m u n iti e s w ith n o p a rticu larp u rp o se . R a n d o lp h w a s d riv in g h is P o n tiac , M c N a ir w a s in the fro n t pas sen g er se at, an d M cIn n is w as o n the d ri v er’s side o f th e b ac ksea t. R an d o lph ’s o ld e r c o u s in , R o d n e y S a n d s (“ S a n d s ” ), f la g g e d th e m d o w n , a n d S a n d s fo llo w e d th e th re e in to the ci r cul ardr i ve of

the C hur ch of

C hr i s t , and pul l ed up hi s L exus on the pas s engers i de of the Pont i ac. ¶3. E veryone r emai ned i n thei rcar s w hi l e, f ort en t o tw el ve mi nut es, S ands ques t i oned the young men aboutthei ri nvol vementi n a r ece ntbr eak- i n. A l though they ar gued, the conver s at i on nevergotheat ed. ¶4. M eanw hi l e, A qui R hodes not i ced Sands parked atthe chur ch and de ci ded t o s t op and talk w ith h im . R h o d e s h a d a .4 5 c a lib e r p isto l be tw e e n the d riv e r se a t an d th e c o n so le o f h is F o rd E x p lo re r. H e p u lled in o n th e d riv e r’s sid e o f R a n d o lp h ’s P o n tiac , fac in g th e o p p o site di r ect i on. R hodes gotoutof hi s E xpl or er , l eane d overthe p asse nger - s i de w i ndow of R andolph’ s Pont i ac, and i m m edi at el y began a ccus i ng the thr ee of bur gl ar i zi ng hi s hom e. M cI nni s , i nt oxi cat ed and arm ed w i th a . 40 cal i berK el
- T ec pi s t ol , beca m e vi s i bl y agi t at ed and thr eat eni ng, and the conve r s at i on qui ckl y be came heat ed. D ur i ng the ar gum ent , Sands
r emai ned athi s vehi cl e. ¶5. A ccor di ng t o M cN ai r , R hodes r etr i eved agun f r om hi s c ar . T hen, mul t i pl e s hot s r ang outf r om the dri ver’ s s i de of R andolph’ s vehi cl e. M cN ai r , w ho w as s t i l l i n the pas s enger s eat , cl ai m ed the s hot s came f r om out s i de the Pont i ac. R hodes – cl ai m i ng thatM cI nni s had3

sh o t at h im first –a d m itt e d firin g fiv e o r six sh o ts a t th e P o n tiac w ith h is .4 5 c a lib e r p isto l. Pol i ce l at erw er e t o r ecove rsi x, . 45 cal i berproj ect i l es , al l fi r ed f r om the sa m e w eapon: thr ee f r om the Pont i ac, one f

r om the gr ound, and tw o f r om M cI nni s ’ s body. A l s o r ecove r ed f r om i ns i de the P on t i ac w er e tw el ve s hel l cas i ngs , f our. 40 cal i berand ei ght. 45 cal i ber . E i ght
m o re sh ell ca sing s w ere fou n d o n the g rou n d ; sev en . 4 5 ca lib er, an d o n e .40 ca lib er. ¶6 . M cN air t esti fi ed that, as h e g o t do w n to av o id the g u n fi re, he sa w R h o d es ru n tow ard the chur ch, s t i l l f

i r i ng atthe Pont i ac. H e al s o not i ced thatSands , w ho w as cr ouched a tthe re a r o f h is L e x u s, h a d a “s m a ll b lac kg u n ,” b u t he n e v e r sa w h im fire it. A lth o u g h M c N a ir nevert es t i f

i ed thathe s aw Sands s hootthe gun orpoi nti tatanyone, he di d s ay “I tw as p o in te d .” ¶7. R hodes cl ai m ed he br i ef l y s aw R andolph j um p outof the Pont i ac and run. Randol ph wa s l a t e rf

o u n d a c r o s s th e r o a d f

r o m th e c h u r c h , d e a d f

r o m two g u n s h o two u n d s . T h e two fa tal w o u n d s in h is b a c kh a d “ta tto o in g ,” m e a n in g the sh o ts w e re fired at c lo se , n e a r-c o n tac t, r ange. ¶ 8 . R h o d e s a n d S a n d s le ft th e sc e n e . M c N a ir –w ith M c In n is in th e b a c kse a t –w e n t to the hos pi t al emer gency r oom . M cN ai rw as st abil i zed, and then f l ow n t o Forr es tG ener al H o sp ital fo r fu rth e r tre a tm e n t. M c In n is w a s a lre a d y d e a d , w ith tw o , . 4 5 c a lib e r p rojec til e f r agment s l odged i n hi s l ef tr i b cage . ¶9. Fi ve days af

t erthe s hoot i ng, S ands turned hi m s el f i n. R hodes boar ded a G r eyhound bus and eventual l y ended up i n G r een B ay, W i s cons i n, w her e he w as arr es t ed a yearl at erf or a s epar at e of

f ens e. H e w as r eturned t o M i s s i s s i ppi becaus e of the pendi ng char ges s t emm i ng4

f r om the s hoot i ng. R hodes ’ s ve hi cl e w as f ound a l m os ttw o months l at er , butno w eapons w er e eve rr ecove r ed. ¶ 1 0 . A t trial, w h e n a sk e d o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n ab o u t th e u se o f m a riju a n a , M c N a ir admi tt ed t o “s m oki ng blunt s ” w i th the tw o othervi ct i m s as they w er e r i di ng ar ound. T he S t at e, on redi rect , eli ci t ed tes t i m on y fr om M cN ai r about drug use b y R ho des and S and s. R hodes ’ s couns el i m m edi at el y object ed t o the “s cope” of the ques t i on and w as overrul ed. Sands ’ s att orney r ai s ed no obj ect i on. ¶ 1 1 . F o llo w in g M c N a ir’s te stim o n y a t trial, the jud g e h a lted the p ro c e e d in g s to in v e stig a te an al l egat i on of

j ur ormi s conduct . W i thouts t at i ng how the i s s ue w as br oughtt o hi s att ent i on, the j udge conduc t ed a meet i ng i n chamber s w i th al l part i es pr es ent . H e expl ai ned t o them th a th e i n t e n d e d t o c o n d u c tv o i rd i r e o f e a c h j u ry me mb e ri n d i v i d u a l l y a n d a s kth e m two ques t i ons pert ai ni ng t o thei rconductdur i ng l unch. T he r es pons e f r om e ach j ury mem berw as appr opr i at e and the j udge rul ed i ta noni s s ue. T he def ens e made no m ot i on f

orm i s tr i al or a n y o th e r m e n tio n o f th e a lleg e d m isc o n d u c t u n til th e m o tio n a n d h e a rin g fo r a n e w trial. ¶12. A tthe hear i ng on the mot i on f ora new tr i al , both R hodes an d Sands al l eged j ur or m isc o n d u c t. S a n d s’s b ro th e r file d a n a ffid a v it an d tes tified th a t h e h a d s e e n ju ro r Ja c k ie C ol eman w al ki ng and t al ki ng w i th R andolph’ s m otheraf t erl unch. T her e w as no t es t i m ony a s to w h a t w a s s a id . T h e ju d g e w e ig h e d th is n e w e v id e n c e a g a in s t h is e a rlierd e c isio n to conducta voi rdi r e on the j ury dur i ng tr i al and the ans w er s he r ece i ved. T hen he de ni ed the
m o tio n fo r a n e w trial.Bush v. St ate , 89 5 So. 2d 836, 843 (Mi ss. 2005) (quoti ng Carr v . S tat e , 208 So. 2d 886, 1 889 (Miss. 1968) ). Id. (quoting Ja ck

so n v . V irg in ia , 443 U.S. 307, 315, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 2 (1979)) (c itati ons omitted). 5 A N A L Y S IS I . Suff

i ci ency of

t he E vi dence A . R odne y Sands ¶13. A j ury convi ct ed Sands of tw o c ount s of

m ans l aught erand one c ountof aggr avat ed assaul t . S and s ar gu es that his m oti on f or di rect ed verdi cts ho uld have been grant ed b ecause ther e w as n o evi dence thathe f i r ed a s hotand no evi dence t o s upportthe hea t - of
- pas s i on elem en t of m an slau g h ter. ¶1 4 . W h en rev iew ing a c h all en g e to th e su ffi cien cy o f the e v iden ce , “ the crit ical i n q u iry i s w hetherthe evi dence s how s ‘ beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatacc us ed com m i tt ed the ac t charged , and that he di d so u nd er s uch ci rcum st ances that every el em ent of the o ff ense e x iste d ; an d w h e re th e e v id e n c e fa ils to m e e t th is te st it is in su ffic ien t to m e e t a co n v ict ion . ’” 1 ¶15. T he r evi ew i ng Courti s notr equi r ed t o de ci de w hetheri tthi nks the St at e pr oved the d e fe n d a n t’s g u ilt . R a th e r, “th e re lev a n t q u e stio n is w h e th e r, af terv iew in g th e e v id e n c e in the l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e to the pr os ecut i on, any r at i onal tr i erof f actcoul d have f

ound the e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n ab le d o u b t.” 2 ¶1 6. I f t he f a c t s a ndi nf

e r e nc e s “ ‘ po i nti n f

a vo rof the de f e nd a nton a ny e l e mentof the o ffe n se w ith su ffic ien t fo rc e th a t re a so n ab le m e n c o u ldn o t h a v e fo u n d b e y o n d a re a so n ab leId. (quoting Ed ward s v. St ate , 469 So. 2d 68, 70 (Miss. 1983)) (citat ions omitted). 3 Id. 4Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-35 (Rev. 2006) . 5 6 d o u b t th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a s g u ilty ,’ th e n th e p ro p e r re m e d y is fo r th e ap p e llate c o u rt to rever se and rend er. ” B ut i f the ev iden ce sh ow s that r easona ble and fai r- m i nd ed p ers on s, 3
w hi l e consi deri ng the beyond- a- r eas onabl e- doubts t andar d i n the exe r ci s e of i m part i al del i ber at i ons , m i ghtha ve r eac hed di f f er entc oncl us i ons on every e l ementof the of f ens e, then

“ th e e v id e n c e w ill b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n s u ff ic ie n t.” 4 ¶17. T o f

i nd Sands gui l ty on any of the count s of

the i ndi ctm ent , the j ury had t o conclude f r om the evi dence , beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , thatS ands had shotthe vi ct i m s . A nd on the ma n s l a u g h t e rc h a r g e s , th e S t a t e wa s r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e th a tS a n d s h a d k i l l e d th e v i c t i ms wi th o u tma l i c e , i n th e h e a to f p a s s i o n b y u s e o f

ad e a d l y we ap o n wi th o u ta u th o r i ty o f l a w, and noti n nece s s ary s el f
- def ens e. T he S t at e argue s that“ther e w as ampl e evi dence of 5 d e fe n d a n t’s b e in g in v o lv e d a n d firin g sh o ts,” a n d su c h e v id e n c e is le g a lly su ffic ien t to uphol d a mansl aught erconvi ct i on. ¶1 8 . M cN air, the o n ly su rviv ing v ict im , tes ti fi ed tha t he h ea rd sh o ts co m ing from R h o d es’s s i de of the car , w hi ch, acc or di ng t o the evi dence , w as noti n the s ame v i ci nity as w her e he
m om ent ar i l y s aw S ands cr ouched atthe back of hi s car , the L exus . M cN ai radded that , af t er the s hoot i ng s t art ed, he l ooked aga i n t ow ar ds the Lexus and s aw S and s atthe ba ck of the L exus w i th a “s m al l ” gun, buthe neve ratany poi nts aw Sands s hootthe w eapon.Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19 (Rev. 2006) . 6 7 ¶19. M cN ai r ’ s t es t i m ony thathe had s een Sands cr ouched be hi nd hi s carw i th a gun w as th e S tate ’s o n ly p ro o f th a t S a n d s s h o t an y o n e . T h is is w h o lly in su ffic ien t, an d p a rticu lar ly s o i n l i ghtof

the f ol l ow i ng evi dence : A l l of the bul l etf

r agment s and s hel l cas i ngs f ound by law e n fo rc e m e n t w e re e ith e r .4 0 o r .4 5 c a lib e r; a ll o f th e .4 0 c a lib e r c a sin g s w e re tra c e dto a s i ngl e gun; M cI nni s w as arm ed w i th a . 40 cal i berK el
- T ec pi s t ol ; al l of the . 45 cal i ber c a sin g s w e re tra c e d to a sin g le g u n ; R h o d e s w a s a rm e d w ith a .4 5 c a lib e r g u n ; b o th M c In n is and R ho des had fi red theirgu ns. ¶20. C ons i der i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the ver di ct , thi s C ourtf i nds that the e v iden ce w a s ins u ffi cien t t o estab li sh that S an d s sh o t any o n e. T h ere fore , S an d s’s convi ct i ons m us tbe r ever s ed. B . A qui D em et ri us R hodes ¶ 2 1 . R h o d e s w a s c o n v icte d o f tw o c o u n ts o f m u rd e r an d o n e co u n t of ag g ra v a ted a ss a u lt. R hodes cl ai m s i ns uf

f i ci entevi dence w a s s ho w n o f the e l e ment s of

“mal i ce a f

or ethought ” and

“ d e lib e ra te d e s ig n .” ¶ 2 2 . S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -1 9 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e re a d s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: ( 1) T he ki l l i ng of

a hum an bei ng w i thoutthe author i ty of l aw by any means or i n an y m ann er s hallbe m urder i n the f oll ow i ng cases: ( a) W hen done w i th de l i ber at e des i gn t o e f f ectthe death of

the per son k i l l ed orany human bei ng. 6 ¶23. I ti s undi s put ed thatR hodes di d nothave the author i ty of l aw , thatboth vi ct i m s had been s hotand ki l l ed w i th af i r earm , and thatR hodes had s hothi s f i r earm m ul t i pl e t i m es atWil so n v . S tat e , 936 So. 2d 357, 363-64 (Miss. 2006) . 7 Id. 8 McN air tes tif ied that th e shoo ting s tar

ted from the driver’ssideof th e car , where R ho de s 9 was positioned, and he later testified that he saw R hodes firing a gun. Rhodes te stified thathe shot his gun in ret aliati on. 8 the vi ct i m s . So the onl y ques t i on i s w hetherthe S t at e pr es ent ed the j ury w i th s uf f i ci ent evi dence thatR hodes di d s o w i th del i ber at e des i gn. ¶2 4 . U n d er M issi ssipp i law , th e term s “d eli b era te de sign ” an d “m ali ce afo retho u g h t” are cons i der ed s ynonym ous a nd both “ connot e an i nt entt o ki l l . ” T hi s i nt entm ay be “ f orm ed 7 q u ick ly ,” e v e n “ m o m e n ts b e fo re th e a c t” a n d m a y b e in fe rre d fro m th e u se o f a d e a d ly
w eapon. 8 ¶25. M cN ai rt es t i f

i ed thatthe conf

r ont at i on w i th R hodes w as bas ed on an e ar l i erbr eak- i n, and R hodes had bel i eved the vi ct i m s w er e r espons i bl e. A ddi t i onal l y, both M cN ai rand Rh o d e s t e s t i f

i e d th a tRh o d e s h a d p o s s e s s e d a n d f i r e d a g u n . T h e t e s t i mo n y o n th e s e two

9 p o ints, co u p led w ith allreaso n ab le i n feren ce s fav o rab le t o th e p rose cu ti o n , m ee t the s tand ard fo r th e “ d e lib e ra te d e sig n ” e lem e n t. ¶26. T he St at e pr es ent ed s uf f i ci entevi dence on al l el ement s of m ur ders uch that
r eas onabl e, f

ai r - m i nded j ur or s coul d have f ound thatthe St at e pr oved thes e es s ent i al el ement s as t o R hodes , beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . B as ed on the f or egoi ng, w e af

f i rm the c o n v ic tio n s a g a in s t R h o d e s .9 CO NC L US I ON ¶27 . T he jury d i d n ot have suff i ci ent evi den ce before i tt o sup po rtthe v erdi ct s agai nst Sands ; ther ef

or e, w e r ever s e the C i r cui tC ourtof J ef f er s on C ounty on thes e count s and render. B ut w e fi n d tha t the jury h ad suff i ci ent evi den ce t o sup po rtthe v erdi ct s agai nst R ho des, and w e aff

i rm tho se conv i ct i on s. ¶28. AS T O R OD NE Y S AN DS : CO NV I CT I ON OF T W O C OU NT S OF M ANSLAUGH TER AND O NE CO UNT O F AG GR AVA TED AS S AULT, REVERSED AND RE NDE RE D. ¶29. AS TO AQUI RHODES : COUNT I : CONVI CT I ON OF M URDE R AND SENTE NC E O F LI FE I M PRI SON M EN T I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DEPARTM ENT OF CO RRECTI ON S , W I TH TH E POS S I BI LI TY OF PARO LE, AFFI RM ED . CO UN T I I : CO NV I CT I O N O F M UR DE R A ND SENTE NC E O F LI FE I M P RI S ON M E NT I N T HE CU S T OD Y OF TH E M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS , W I TH THE P OS S I BI LI TY OF P AROL E, AF F I RM ED . COUNT I I I : CO NVI CTI ON OF AG GR AVA TED ASS AULT A ND S ENTENCE O F TW ENTY ( 2 0 ) YE AR S I M PRI SON M EN T I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , A F F IR M E D . S E N T E N C E S IM P O S E D IN COUNT S I , I I AND I I I S HALL RUN CONS EC UT I VE LY TO E ACH OTHE R. W A LL ER , C . J. , C A R LSO N , P. J. , R A N D O LP H , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CH AN DL E R A ND P I E RC E , J J . , CO NC UR . KI NG , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .