Bland v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-KA-00973-SCT |
| Parties | JOSEPH EARL BLAND a/k/a JOSEPH BLAND a/k/a JOSEPH E. BLAND v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
BRENDA FAY MITCHELL
¶1. A Tunica County jury found Joseph Earl Bland guilty of first-degree murder after he shot and killed his girlfriend, Olletta Jones. Bland appeals his conviction, claiming the trial court erred by excluding Bland's testimony regarding his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), thereby depriving him of the right to assert his defense. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, we affirm Bland's conviction.
¶2. On February 23, 2017, Willie West woke up around 5:00 a.m. to the sound of a car alarm. From his front door, West saw a man and a woman standing near each other at the rear passenger side of a car parked in the middle of the road. They appeared to be talking, but West could not hear what they were saying. West saw the woman move away from the man and walk around the front of the car and try to get into the car on the driver's side. West then saw three flashes come from the man's hand and watched the woman fall to the ground.
¶3. After the woman fell, West cried out that the man had "shot her." At that point, West's son pulled West back into the house, and West called 911.
¶4. Officers with the Tunica County Sheriff's Department arrived at the scene minutes later. Jones was found deceased lying face down on the pavement next to the opened driver's side door of a Chevy Volt. Bland was still at the scene. After the officers realized Bland was involved they called the Mississippi Highway Patrol to assist due to Bland's familial relationship with one of their deputies.
¶5. Lieutenant Bryant Sullivant with highway patrol conducted the investigation. He found three spent shell casings outside the vehicle and recovered a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from the back seat of the vehicle.
¶6. A gunshot-residue test was performed on Bland's hands and sent to the Mississippi Crime Lab. Gunshot residue was identified on the samples taken from Bland's right hand, right palm, and the back of his left hand.
¶7. Dr. Lisa Funte performed Jones's autopsy. She testified at trial that Jones died of multiple gunshot wounds. Two bullet projectiles were removed from Jones's body during the autopsy, and a third bullet projectile was found inside the body bag used to transport Jones's body to the medical examiner's office.
¶8. Bland testified at trial that Jones was shot in self-defense. According to Bland, he had bought the .45 caliber pistol about a month prior to the shooting and kept it in his possession most of the time. He kept the gun under the driver's seat when he was driving and under the passenger's seat when he was a passenger.
¶9. Bland said that after he got off work from Sam's Town Casino the night of the shooting, he went home to the apartment he shared with Jones. Jones wanted to go gambling, and she drove the two of them to the Hollywood Casino. Bland placed his gun underneath the passenger's seat.
¶10. After gambling at the casino, Bland drove back to the apartment to get more money while Jones remained at the casino. Bland said he forgot to remove his gun from underneath the passenger's seat and place it under the driver's seat. When Bland returned to the casino, he sat with Jones as she gambled. He then told Jones he was going to sit in the car and get some rest because he had to be at his second job a few hours later.
¶11. According to Bland, Jones came out of the casino approximately ten or fifteen minutes later, and the two of them left. Bland drove the car, and he and Jones began to argue about who was going to use the car the next day. The argument escalated when Bland commented to Jones that she "wasn't a good woman" and "that's the reason why she do[es]n't have custody over her children." Bland said this was like a "gut punch" to her. Bland said he glanced over at Jones and noticed a little movement but "didn't know what she was doing." He said that Jones "had the firearm drawn on me," pointed it at his head, and said, "I'm gonna kill you." He said Jones pulled the trigger, "and I heard the gun click."
¶12. Bland testified that Jones recocked the gun, and that's when I had lunged over there where the gun - - where she had the gun at, you know, like trying to keep her from doing what her action was, and then, like, during the time where I was, you know, like driving the car, I was swerving a little bit over in the lane, but then, you know, during that little tussle right there, that's when the firearm went off, and like I said, it hit her in the leg - -
¶13. Bland said that as the car came "to a halt," he was still trying to stop Jones from shooting him. He said Jones got out of the car with the gun in her hand "trying to - - attempting to shoot me, that's when I went into pursuit after her, to try to get the firearm from her before she actually learned how to load the gun." Bland said they eventually met up at the driver's side door and tussled for the gun Bland said Jones still had in her hand.
¶15. Prior to Bland's testimony, defense counsel had informed the trial court that Bland potentially would bring up that he suffers from PTSD, having witnessed his father murdered when Bland was four years old. Defense counsel submitted that this condition impacted Bland's actions the night of the shooting.
¶16. Defense counsel acknowledged that they had not filed an insanity defense and reiterated that Bland had been found competent to stand trial. But defense counsel wanted a ruling from the trial court as to whether Bland could bring up the fact that he had witnessed his father's death at four years old "as a, I assume, less than perfect self-defense defense in this case."
¶17. The trial court asked if the defense had any medical witnesses or documentation. Defense counsel said they had none but submitted that Bland had been in therapy since the shooting and that Bland had informed counsel that he was at that time on medication for PTSD.
¶18. The State argued that whether or not Bland witnessed the death of his father was not relevant and would only mislead the jury or provoke sympathy for the defendant about an event that he may have witnessed.
¶19. When asked by the trial court how this was relevant, defense counsel said that this testimony would go to Bland's state of mind at the moment he was confronted with deadly force,
¶20. The trial court replied, "you're getting into a lot of psychoanalytical issues when, as far as I know, nobody in the courtroom is qualified to give opinions on." The trial court then held a brief recess to consider the matter.
¶21. Following the recess, the trial court stated its concern about allowing Bland to testify about what he witnessed when he was four years old in relation to what happened on the night of the shooting:
[T]hat's all subject to professional testimony of which there is none. So I'm gonna say no, we're not gonna be going into that. I think, one, that's too remote, and, two, there's absolutely no scientific basis that's been set forth to demonstrate that would have any impact upon the defendant some 30 something years later. Now - - and I'm not faced with an expert coming in here and telling me that.
¶22. Afterwards, the State brought to the trial court's attention this Court's decision in Evans v. State, 109 So.3d 1044, 1050 (Miss. 2013), in which this Court reversed a defendant's murder conviction upon finding that the trial court erred by denying the defendant funds to hire an expert on PTSD. The State submitted that out of an abundance of caution based on Evans, it would not object to Bland testifying that he has PTSD, but it would object to Bland testifying that witnessing his father's death had caused it.
¶23. In response, defense counsel argued that it was nonsensical to allow someone to say they have PTSD but not to allow them to explain why they have it or where it came from. The trial court then asked defense counsel, "who's here that can testify that PTSD had anything to do with impacting his actions on the night in question?" Defense counsel replied, "Just my client."
¶24. After reading and considering Evans, the trial court stated for the record that it looked at the pretrial motion for psychiatric examination filed by the defense. The court noted that the motion contained no reference to PTSD; rather, it was limited to Bland's competency to stand trial. The trial court then ruled that it was not going to allow any testimony from Bland regarding PTSD.
¶25. The jury found Bland guilty of murder.[1] Bland appeals asserting one assignment of error: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial