Opinion ID: 1640733
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether the state coerced other witnesses into providing false testimony against howell.

Text: ¶ 48. Concerning this issue, Howell alleges that the State improperly coerced statements from Brandon Shaw, Tonya Peterson and Terkecia Pannell. Peterson and Pannell did not testify at trial. The actions of law enforcement officials in the questioning of Peterson and Pannell have no relevance here. ¶ 49. Shaw testified at trial that, prior to the killing, he had been riding around Tupelo with Ray, Lipsey, and Howell, and that Howell had made a comment about robbing a man at a gas station who was an easy lick. Shaw refused to participate, and no robbery occurred at that point. Shaw later went home, and Howell, Ray, and Lipsey left without him. Shaw also testified that several hours later, Howell, Ray, and Lipsey returned to Shaw's house in the dark Oldsmobile. Shaw testified that Ray had stated that Howell had shot somebody. Shaw further testified that he never saw Howell with the gun but that Howell had something wrapped in a green shirt under his arm after the shooting. Shaw told law enforcement officials that he had seen Howell walk from behind his house where the gun was later found. Shaw then drove Howell to Blue Mountain, and when he dropped Howell off, Howell told him not to tell anyone. ¶ 50. In his affidavit, Shaw now recants parts of his prior testimony. Shaw does not recant his trial testimony about the adoptive admission when Ray claimed that Howell had shot someone; however, Shaw now attempts to clarify some of his trial testimony. Shaw claims that after he drove Howell home, Howell unwrapped the shirt from his hand and no gun was inside. Shaw's new statement still coincides with the proof offered at trial where it was shown that the gun was found at Shaw's house and must have been left there before Shaw drove Howell to Blue Mountain. Shaw also claims that Ray and Lipsey told him that the gun was behind the house and that he never saw Howell go behind the house. Shaw further claims that his testimony concerning Howell's comments about robbing the man at the gas station have been misconstrued. He now claims that [w]hen I told the police that [Howell] mentioned there goes an easy lick in Tupelo that was meant to say sell someone fake drugs or to trick them ... Marlon did not mean robbery with a gun. Shaw's current statement is belied by his trial testimony: Prosecutor: What happened there [in Tupelo] when you went by the gas station? Shaw: That is when he made the comment about robbing the man that was standing outside. Prosecutor: When you say he who do you mean by he? Shaw: Marlon. Prosecutor: What exactly was said? Shaw: He said ... there go an easy lick right there. The trial record clearly reveals that the comments about an easy lick referred to a robbery and not a drug scam. ¶ 51. Shaw also claims that he was pressured by law enforcement and that the process was scary and unbelievable. No specifics of the alleged pressure have been provided. Shaw does not claim that he was threatened in any way. ¶ 52. We find that Shaw's current statement is highly suspect and that Howell has not made a sufficient showing that an evidentiary hearing concerning Shaw's testimony is necessary. Therefore, we find this issue has no merit.