Buchanan v. State

• Decision Date: 08 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2017-CT-01082-SCT,2017-CT-01082-SCT
• Citation: 316 So.3d 619
• Parties: Sedrick BUCHANAN and Armand Jones a/k/a Armond Jones a/k/a A.J. Jones v. STATE of Mississippi
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

316 So.3d 619

Sedrick BUCHANAN and Armand Jones a/k/a Armond Jones a/k/a A.J. Jones

v.STATE of Mississippi

No. 2017-CT-01082-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 8, 2021

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: DAVID P. VOISIN, M. KEVIN HORAN, Greenwood, BRADLEY D. DAIGNEAULT, Grenada

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA BYRD

EN BANC.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

GRIFFIS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. In this certiorari case, we must determine whether the testimonial statement of an unavailable witness may be introduced against a defendant under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), otherwise known as the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing hearsay exception. Because the record shows that Armand Jones forfeited by wrongdoing his constitutional right to confront the witness, we affirm his convictions of murder and attempted murder. But because there was insufficient evidence presented to support Sedrick Buchanan's convictions of aggravated assault, we reverse and render a judgment of acquittal as to Buchanan.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On August 15, 2015, at approximately 11:00 p.m., D'Alandis Love, Perez Love, Kelsey Jennings, and Ken-Norris Stigler were traveling west on Highway 82 in a red Pontiac headed to the Moroccan Lounge, a club in Itta Bena. As they were driving, a gold Tahoe approached and opened fire on their vehicle. D'Alandis Love was killed. Perez Love, Jennings, and Stigler were seriously injured.

¶3. Bill Staten, an investigator with the Leflore County Sheriff's Department, responded to the scene. He examined the Pontiac and noticed that the rear passenger window had been shot out and that there were bullet holes along that particular side of the vehicle. Investigator Staten took photographs and collected evidence, including multiple 7.62 mm shell casings and one .40-caliber shell casing. He also recovered one .40-caliber pistol in the vehicle.

¶4. Amber Conn, a crime-scene analyst with the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation, also examined the Pontiac. According to Conn, the vehicle was shot from the back toward the front. During her investigation of the vehicle, Conn recovered another .40-caliber pistol located on the front passenger floorboard. The pistol was fully loaded, and its safety was locked.

¶5. Lisa Funte, the State's medical examiner, opined that D'Alandis Love died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds. According to Funte, the manner of his death was homicide.

¶6. Jones, Buchanan, Michael Holland, Jacarius Keys, and James Earl McClung, Jr., were developed as suspects in the shooting. On September 3, 2015, Keys, accompanied by his attorney, went to the Leflore County Sheriff's Department and gave a statement to Investigator Staten. Keys's statement, which was videotaped, implicated Jones, Holland, Buchanan, and McClung in the shooting.

¶7. Keys, Jones, Holland, Buchanan, and McClung were later indicted and charged with one count of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted first-degree murder. Approximately five months after the men were indicted, Keys was shot and killed. Holland and Buchanan were considered suspects in Keys's death. It is undisputed that at the time of Keys's death, Jones was incarcerated.

¶8. Before trial, Jones, Holland, Buchanan, and McClung moved to exclude Keys's videotaped statement based on hearsay and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. The trial court denied the motion and allowed the statement to be admitted into evidence under Mississippi Rules of Evidence 804(b)(3) (the statement-against-interest hearsay exception), 804(b)(5) (the catch-all hearsay exception), and 804(b)(6) (the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing hearsay exception). The defendants further moved to sever their cases. That motion was denied.

¶9. Additionally, before trial, Buchanan moved to exclude testimony and evidence related to his postshooting arrest. After Buchanan was arrested for the shooting but while he was out on bond, a .40-caliber pistol was found in a vehicle in which he was a passenger. The pistol was located beneath the center console between the driver's seat and front passenger seat. The vehicle in which the pistol was found was owned by Buchanan's friend, Danarius Jackson. The .40-caliber pistol found in the vehicle was purchased by and registered to Jackson. The trial court found that Buchanan's pretrial motion was premature and should be raised at trial.

¶10. At trial, the State presented multiple witnesses including Starks Hathcock, an expert in firearms and toolmarks identification. Hathcock examined the .40-caliber pistol found in Jackson's vehicle but was unable to positively determine whether the gun fired the .40-caliber shell casing recovered at the scene of the shooting. Nevertheless, the pistol was admitted into evidence over Buchanan and Jones's objection.

¶11. Also at trial, Keys's videotaped statement was presented to the jury. This statement is discussed in more detail below.

¶12. Jones, Holland, Buchanan, and McClung were all convicted of various offenses. Relevant to this appeal, the jury found Jones guilty of first-degree murder regarding D'Alandis Love and guilty of three counts of attempted first-degree murder regarding Perez Love, Jennings, and Stigler. Jones was sentenced to serve life in prison for his murder conviction and thirty years for each attempted-murder conviction.

¶13. The jury acquitted Buchanan of the first-degree murder of D'Alandis Love but found Buchanan guilty of the lesser-included offenses of aggravated assault with respect to Perez Love, Jennings, and Stigler. Buchanan was sentenced to serve three consecutive terms of twenty years for each aggravated-assault conviction.

¶14. Jones and Buchanan filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, which the trial court denied. Jones and Buchanan timely appealed, and each asserted numerous assignments of error.

¶15. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed Jones's and Buchanan's convictions. Buchanan v. State , No. 2017-KA-01082-COA, 2019 WL 6490737, at *24 (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2019). The court concluded that the trial court did not err by admitting Keys's statement into evidence under Rule 804(b)(6), the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception. Id. at *9, *10. The court found that sufficient evidence was presented "to reasonably infer a conspiracy at least between Jones and Holland to kill or harm the Loves and that Keys's murder was in furtherance and within the scope of that conspiracy." Id. at *12. The court determined "that Buchanan engaged in or acquiesced in the wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure Keys's unavailability" and "that Holland and Buchanan's waiver-by-misconduct c[ould] be imputed to Jones[.]" Id. at *9, *10. The Court of Appeals found no merit in Jones's argument that Keys's statement should have been excluded as self-serving. Id. at *12

¶16. Regarding Buchanan's specific assignments of error, the Court of Appeals found that sufficient evidence was presented to support Buchanan's convictions of aggravated assault. Id. at *18-20. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the .40-caliber pistol recovered during Buchanan's postshooting arrest and the related testimony into evidence. Id. at *15.

¶17. Jones and Buchanan filed separate petitions for certiorari. This Court granted both petitions. In his petition, Jones argues that the trial court erroneously admitted Keys's videotaped statement under Rule 804(b)(6). Buchanan also raises this argument but asserts two additional arguments: (1) the trial court erroneously admitted evidence regarding a .40 caliber pistol recovered during his postshooting arrest, and (2) insufficient evidence supports his convictions of aggravated assault.

ANALYSIS

I. Armand Jones

A. Admission of Keys's Videotaped Statement

¶18. Jones first argues that the trial court erroneously admitted Keys's videotaped statement under Rule 804(b)(6), the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing hearsay exception. "Our standard of review regarding admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion." Jenkins v. State , 102 So. 3d 1063, 1065 (Miss. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Smith v. State , 25 So. 3d 264, 269 (Miss. 2009) ). "Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo." Id. (citing Smith , 25 So. 3d at 269 ).

¶19. Both the United States Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution guarantee a defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to confront the witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI (applicable to the states through U.S. Const. amend. XIV ); Miss. Const. art. 3, § 26. The United States Supreme Court has held that a testimonial statement of a witness absent from trial should be admitted only when the witness is unavailable and when the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 59, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed. 2d 177 (2004). But a defendant's right to confront the witnesses is not unlimited and is subject to two clear exceptions.

¶20. An unavailable witness's unconfronted testimonial statement is admissible if (1) the "declarations [were] made by a speaker who was both on the brink of death and aware he was dying" or (2) the witness "was ‘detained’ or ‘kept away’ by the ‘means or procurement’ of the defendant." Giles v. California , 554 U.S. 353, 358-59, 128 S. Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed. 2d 488 (2008). The second exception for admissibility is otherwise known as "forfeiture by wrongdoing." Id. at 359, 128 S. Ct. 2678.

¶21. A party "who obtains the absence of a witness by wrongdoing forfeits the constitutional right to confrontation." Davis v. Washington , 547 U.S. 813, 833, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed. 2d 224 (2006) ; see also Crawford , 541 U.S. at 62, 124 S.Ct. 1354 ("[T]he rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing ... extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds ...."). Likewise, under Rule 804(b)(6), a party forfeits his rights to object to a prior testimonial statement on hearsay grounds...