Opinion ID: 2535008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the evidence supporting the murder conviction was sufficient to support the verdict.

Text: ¶ 10. King filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which was denied by the trial court. King argues that the State's evidence consisted of accomplice testimony from Jones and Wright that was substantially impeached on cross-examination, and that the evidence evinced an incomplete police investigation. Therefore, he argues, the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict of guilty of murder. In King's brief, he limits his sufficiency arguments to the murder conviction. Accordingly, this Court confines the sufficiency analysis to the evidence supporting King's murder conviction. ¶ 11. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is whether, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found every essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 843 (Miss.2005) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). We will affirm if the evidence is of such quality and weight that, `having in mind the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof standard, reasonable fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions on every element of the offense.' Id. (quoting Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985)). We will reverse and render the conviction if the facts and inferences, although considered in the light most favorable to the verdict, point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. Id. ¶ 12. In order to establish King's guilt of murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that King killed Robinson without the authority of law and with deliberate design to effect his death. See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19 (Rev. 2006). In addition to a murder instruction, the trial court also gave jury instructions on accomplice liability that allowed the jury to find King guilty of murder if it found that another person who acted in concert with King killed Robinson. Mississippi Code Section 97-1-3 provides: Every person who shall be an accessory to any felony, before the fact, shall be deemed and considered a principal, and shall be indicted and punished as such; and this whether the principal have been previously convicted or not. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-1-3 (Rev. 2006). This Court has defined aiding and abetting as the offense committed by those persons who, although not the direct perpetrators of a crime, are yet present at its commission, doing some act to render aid to the actual perpetrator. Smith v. State, 237 Miss. 498, 506, 115 So.2d 318, 322 (1959) (quoting Wynn v. State, 63 Miss. 260 (1885)). The State must prove that the defendant was present, consenting, aiding, and abetting such person in the commission of the crime charged. Brooks v. State, 763 So.2d 859, 861 (Miss.2000) (quoting Van Buren v. State, 498 So.2d 1224, 1227 (Miss.1986) (overruled on other grounds)). Aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime involves a community of unlawful purpose at the time the act was committed. Shedd v. State, 228 Miss. 381, 386, 87 So.2d 898, 900 (1956). ¶ 13. King points to certain discrepancies brought out during the testimony of accomplices Jones and Wright. The following are the most glaring discrepancies identified by King. Both Jones and Wright gave prior statements to the police that were inconsistent with their trial testimony. In Jones's initial statement, he denied his own involvement in the shooting. During Jones's testimony, he initially said that King had made the comment that he was tired of these weak-a  n_____s and this b_______t. But when pressed, Jones admitted that he, not King, had made that statement. Wright gave two statements to the police that conflicted with his trial testimony. In the first statement, Wright said he and King had been driving around that night and they had not seen Jones at all. In the second statement, he said King had no weapon when he exited the car at the scene of the shooting, and that neither Jones nor King had weapons when he picked them up. Also, Wright previously had claimed that Jones had admitted having fired shots at the car, while at trial, Wright testified that Jones had said he had hidden in the bushes during the shooting. King also points to discrepancies in the testimony concerning who passed the rifle out of the car window to Thomas. On direct examination, Wright said King had passed Thomas the rifle, but on cross-examination admitted he had told police that both King and Jones had passed Thomas the rifle. King argues that the testimony established a motive for Jones, not King. King asserts that, from Jones's and Wright's testimony, it was impossible for the jury to determine what happened the night of the shooting. ¶ 14. The Court finds that, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that King committed all the elements of murder. Generally, the resolution of conflicts in the witness testimony is a matter for the jury, not the court. Christmas v. State, 10 So.3d 413, 423 (Miss.2009). Concerning the sufficiency of the evidence when a conviction rests upon accomplice testimony, the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to convict the accused. Williams v. State, 32 So.3d 486, 490 (Miss.2010). But if the accomplice testimony is uncorroborated and is unreasonable, self-contradictory, or substantially impeached, then accomplice testimony is insufficient, and the trial court must direct a verdict of not guilty. Id. (quoting Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1253 (Miss.1995)). ¶ 15. The Court finds that the testimony of accomplices Jones and Wright was not unreasonable, self-contradictory, or substantially impeached. Thomas testified that he was with Wright and King at King's house that night. Wright testified that, after getting a call from Jones, King got a rifle and they drove to pick up Jones. Thomas testified that King had shown him this rifle months before. Jones testified he was picked up by King and Wright. Lowe testified that he saw King in Wright's car as it circled the Double Quick. Jones and Wright testified that King and Jones had formulated a plan in which King would shoot at the car and Jones would shoot at Williams. Jones testified that he saw King fire numerous shots at the car, and heard more shots fired as he ran away. Thomas, who cooperated with the police and was not an accessory before the fact, testified that, after the shooting, King had arrived in a car with Wright and Jones, had given him the rifle, and had asked him to hold it for him. This testimony corroborated that of Wright and Jones. ¶ 16. King also asserts that the State's evidence rested upon an incomplete police investigation into the possibility that Derrick was the second shooter. He points out that Sergeant Byron Vaughn testified that his conversation with Williams led him to suspect King and Jones. On cross-examination, Sergeant Vaughn admitted that Williams had identified Derrick as a shooter, but that he had been excluded on the basis of alibi. The police records included no information about the investigation of Derrick's alibi. King argues that the investigation was incomplete and that the evidence established Derrick should not have been excluded as a suspect because Williams had identified him as the second shooter, and the exact time that Derrick had checked into the hotel had not been established. ¶ 17. Although Williams stated that he was sure Derrick was the second shooter, the police determined that Derrick had checked into a hotel in Greenville at approximately the same time as the shooting. The determination that Derrick was not the second shooter additionally was supported by: (1) the motel check-in card, (2) the motel clerk's identification of Derrick, (3) the fact that Lieutenant Overton had seen Derrick leave the L & L Club separately from Jones, (4) the inference that Williams may not have seen clearly the second shooter during the gunfire, and (5) the evidence that King was the second shooter. ¶ 18. The evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to enable the jury to find King guilty of the essential elements of murder. Moreover, even if the jury believed that Jones, not King, fired the fatal bullet, the above evidence was sufficient to find King guilty as a principal under an accomplice-liability theory. This is because the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, sufficiently established that King was present, consenting, aiding, and abetting [Jones] in the commission of the crime charged, and that King and Jones had shared a community of unlawful purpose. Brooks, 763 So.2d at 861 (Miss.2000) (quoting Van Buren, 498 So.2d at 1227); Shedd, 228 Miss. at 386, 87 So.2d at 900. This issue is without merit.