Ambrose v. State

• Decision Date: 20 May 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2018-DR-01525-SCT,2018-DR-01525-SCT
• Citation: 323 So.3d 482
• Parties: Abdur Rahim AMBROSE a/k/a Abdur Ambrose v. STATE of Mississippi
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

323 So.3d 482

Abdur Rahim AMBROSE a/k/a Abdur Ambrose

v.STATE of Mississippi

No. 2018-DR-01525-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 20, 2021

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL BY: ALEXANDER D. M. KASSOFF TREASURE R. TYSON, Jackson

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND, Jackson

EN BANC.

COLEMAN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A jury convicted Abdur Rahim Ambrose Sr. of the capital murder of Robert Trosclair. The jury also found that Ambrose's sentence should be death, and the Harrison County Circuit Court imposed the death sentence. We affirmed Ambrose's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Ambrose v. State , 254 So. 3d 77 (Miss. 2018). Ambrose's motion for rehearing was subsequently denied on October 18, 2018, and his petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied on March 25, 2019. Ambrose v. Mississippi , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1379, 203 L.Ed.2d 615 (2019) (mem.). Ambrose timely filed his application for postconviction relief on October 25, 2019. It is not well taken and is denied.

FACTS

¶2. Ambrose and Trosclair had been friends for nearly a decade. Believing that Trosclair had broken into Ambrose's vehicle and taken items, Ambrose and two other men beat Trosclair to death. The fatal beating lasted nearly two hours. Ambrose and his cohorts punched, kicked, and stomped Trosclair until he was unrecognizable. Ambrose and the others then loaded Trosclair, who was still alive, into the back of a pickup truck, and Ambrose drove Trosclair to a second location where the three men continued to beat him relentlessly. At one point, Trosclair attempted to escape, but Ambrose chased him down. While Trosclair was lying on the ground, he was hit in the head several times with a fully inflated tire and rim. He was also beaten with a garden hose reel. Trosclair eventually became unresponsive. Sometime thereafter, the attackers bound the victim with a ratchet tow strap and dumped on the side of the road, where he was later discovered by a passerby.

¶3. Trosclair was airlifted to the University of South Alabama Medical Center in Mobile, Alabama. His brain was severely swollen and had shifted four millimeters to the left. The forensic pathologist who performed Trosclair's autopsy testified that "multiple blunt trauma, multiple sharp wounds (including three stab wounds to the flank), and asphyxia by strangulation" were the injuries that caused Trosclair's death. Trosclair suffered substantial head injuries, included hemorrhaging in the front and right side of the subgalea area, subdural hemorrhage, and hemorrhaging to the pons. The pathologist determined that Trosclair had also been strangled based on "hemorrhages in the strap muscles and the hemorrhages in the eyes which correlate with that." Trosclair had "diffuse superficial abrasions" all over his body. Trosclair also suffered jaw and nasal-bone fractures and lacerations to the flank. Trosclair never regained consciousness, and he was declared brain dead and removed from life support.

¶4. At trial, the State presented three eyewitnesses to Trosclair's kidnapping and fatal beating. In addition, Ambrose testified on his own behalf and admitted that he participated in the fatal beating. Ambrose insisted, however, that he did not kidnap the victim and did not intend to kill him. Ambrose's defense theory at trial was that he was criminally responsible as an accomplice to the events in question or, at most, guilty of a lesser homicide than capital murder. Following the guilt phase of trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Ambrose guilty of capital murder.

¶5. During the sentencing phase, the State reintroduced all evidence presented from the guilt phase before resting its case. The defense presented testimony from nine of Ambrose's friends and family members. Cumulatively, the mitigation witnesses testified that Ambrose grew up impoverished, faced many challenges as a youth, was not a violent person, regularly held a job, and loved and supported his children. The mitigation witnesses also testified that they loved Ambrose and that they would write and visit Ambrose in prison. The jury returned a verdict finding that Ambrose should receive the death penalty. The trial court then sentenced Ambrose to death.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

¶6. Ambrose raises the following issues:

I. Whether the investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence were constitutionally inadequate.

II. Whether the trial judge made rulings during voir dire that demonstrate impermissible gender bias, resulting in an unfair pool of prospective jurors.

III. Whether Mississippi's death penalty statute is arbitrary and capricious as applied.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7. The Court's review of Ambrose's application, from a procedural standpoint, is as follows:

Leave is granted only if the application, motion, exhibits, and prior record show that the claims are not procedurally barred and that they "present a substantial showing of the denial of a state or federal right." Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-27(5) (Rev. 2015). Well-pleaded allegations are accepted as true. Simon v. State , 857 So. 2d 668, 678 (Miss. 2003) (citing Moore v. Ruth , 556 So. 2d 1059, 1061-62 (Miss. 1990) ).

In capital cases, non-procedurally barred claims are reviewed using " ‘heightened scrutiny’ under which all bona fide doubts are resolved in favor of the accused." Crawford v. State , 218 So. 3d 1142, 1150 (Miss. 2016) (quoting Chamberlin v. State , 55 So. 3d 1046, 1049-50 (Miss. 2010) ). "[W]hat may be harmless error in a case with less at stake becomes reversible error when the penalty is death." Crawford , 218 So. 3d at 1150 (quoting Chamberlin , 55 So. 3d at 1049-50 ).

Ronk v. State , 267 So. 3d 1239, 1247 (Miss. 2019).

ANALYSIS

I. Whether the investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence were constitutionally inadequate.

¶8. Ambrose asserts that his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated because trial counsel failed to conduct a thorough investigation and failed to present certain mitigating evidence to the jury.

¶9. The record before the Court shows that the defense attempted to humanize Ambrose during the penalty phase. Defense counsel delivered his opening statements by saying:

I will tell you this, that I'm going to put on witnesses who will testify about his background, about his record, about what kind of person he is so you will get to know Rahim through these people. And the purpose of that is to convince you that Rahim has some value, and that he should not just be torn out of the community ... to exterminate him. That he has value, and that he can be helpful in his life and in the lives of others.

¶10. Nine witnesses were called by the defense. The first witness called was Kimberly Turner, Ambrose's mother. She testified that Ambrose did well in school and never got into trouble. She explained that Ambrose's father was shot and killed and that she later married the man who had killed Ambrose's father. Turner testified that Ambrose was not lazy. He always had a job and was a hard worker. She told the jury that Ambrose was an excellent father to his three children, doing more than just providing support for them. She testified that Ambrose was not a violent person and did not have a temper, describing him as a "mamma's boy." Finally, she told the jury that she would write to him in prison and that Ambrose could still contribute to the family.

¶11. The other witnesses, relatives and friends, testified in similar fashion, describing Ambrose as a nonviolent person, a loving father, and a hard worker. His aunt added that Ambrose grew up in poor living conditions with frequent adult parties. Ambrose's cousin testified about the years Ambrose had come to live with her family when Ambrose's mother moved to Florida with another woman. Ambrose's uncle, a pastor, testified that Ambrose had recently been baptized and was active in the church. Many described Ambrose as a responsible person with a dream of writing music. All of the witnesses stated that they would write and visit Ambrose in prison and expressed a desire for him to be spared the death penalty.

¶12. Before trial, defense counsel's mitigation investigation included employing a "mitigation expert." Trial counsel also had Ambrose evaluated by a psychologist pretrial. That psychologist, after making other relevant findings, concluded that Ambrose needed no further psychological evaluation.

¶13. Ambrose now accuses his trial counsel of failing to undertake a reasonable mitigation investigation, as required by the United States Supreme Court and the Mississippi Supreme Court. Ambrose's claim is grounded in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶14. Substantively, ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims involve:

a two-pronged inquiry: the defendant must demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense of the case. To establish deficient performance, a defendant must show that his attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. To establish prejudice, a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the trial would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Ross v. State , 954 So. 2d 968, 1003-04 (Miss. 2007) (citations omitted). A presumption exists that Ambrose's attorneys were competent. Johns v. State , 926 So. 2d 188, 194 (Miss. 2006) (citing Hiter v. State , 660 So. 2d 961 (Miss. 1995) ).

¶15. " ‘Reasonableness’ is based on ‘prevailing professional norms.’ " Ronk , 267 So. 3d at 1248 (quoting Wiggins v. Smith , 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) ). "Our review is highly deferential to the attorney, with a strong presumption that the attorney's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional...