Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 17 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2017-KA-00924-COA,2017-KA-00924-COA |
| Citation | 295 So.3d 544 |
| Parties | Antonio HALL a/k/a Antonio Kentrell Hall, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WANDA TURNER-LEE ABIOTO
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA WAKELAND BYRD, JACKSON.
BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND LAWRENCE, JJ.
WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. On July 14, 2015, a Tate County grand jury indicted Antonio Hall for one count of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-1-1 (Rev. 2014), and for one count of murder in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-19(1)(a) (Rev. 2014). Following a jury trial, which began on May 1, 2017, Antonio was acquitted of the conspiracy charge, and the jury found him guilty of first-degree murder on May 5, 2017. Following his conviction, Antonio filed a motion for recusal, which the circuit court denied. Antonio also filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, a new trial. After a hearing on his post-trial motion for a JNOV or a new trial, the circuit court rendered final judgment on August 15, 2017, and sentenced Antonio to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Antonio appealed, and, finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. On February 8, 2015, James Shorty and Antonio Hall visited Cauthen Circle (Newton), a housing community located in Senatobia. The men claimed they were there to visit the mother of James Hall's daughter. For unclear reasons, the men stopped the vehicle outside of the home of Ludean Carter, an elderly resident. Ms. Carter testified that she did not know the men and told them to move out of her yard. Ms. Carter claims that one of the men yelled back an expletive and instructed her to return to her home; she acquiesced. Shortly after the exchange, eight eyewitnesses testified that a physical altercation ensued between Darrius "Dee" Brooks (Ms. Carter's nephew) and James Shorty. Testimony indicated that during the fight, Antonio retrieved a handgun from the vehicle and shot an undetermined number of bullets at a bystander named Travis Roberts.1 Roberts was shot in the chest and pronounced dead shortly thereafter. When law enforcement arrived, a host of eyewitnesses agreed to review photographic lineups and identified Antonio as the shooter.
¶3. On July 14, 2015, the Tate County grand jury indicted Antonio Hall, along with James Hall and James Shorty, for one count of conspiracy to commit murder and one count of deliberate-design murder in connection with the death of Travis Lamar Roberts. Arrest warrants were subsequently issued for all three men.
¶4. After negotiations, James Shorty and James Hall pled guilty to a reduced charge of accessory-after-the-fact on May 22, 2017. On June 1, 2017, they were sentenced, respectively, to twenty years in the custody of the MDOC with ten years to serve, and placed on ten years of post-release supervision. Antonio moved forward with a jury trial.
¶5. Prior to trial Antonio filed a host of motions, including a motion to change venue, which was filed on April 13, 2017, and a discovery request. Antonio asserted that he could not get a fair trial in Tate County, citing media coverage of the case and violent threats against the defendants' families. On April 19, 2017, the court held a hearing to address pre-trial motions and ultimately deemed it best to hold the "Motion for Change of Venue" in abeyance until after the jury was impaneled. During the hearing, the court inquired as to whether there were any discovery issues it needed to address. Antonio's attorney responded that there were not.
¶6. Dissatisfied, Antonio filed a second "Request for a Change of Venue" on April 25, 2017, again citing violence against the defendants' families along with purported familial connections among the jurors, the defendants, and the victim. The court ultimately determined these issues were insufficient to warrant a change of venue and denied Antonio's motions. Accordingly, the case proceeded in Tate County.
¶7. On April 25, 2017, five days before trial, Antonio also filed a second "Request for Discovery" and a "Motion for an Omnibus" hearing, making several evidentiary requests and alleging the State provided him with incomplete discovery. Antonio further requested funding for a ballistic expert and noted that the State had not provided the full pathology report for the deceased, Travis Roberts. As a part of his numerous discovery requests, Antonio requested "any and all police reports, investigative reports, evidence and supplemental reports or the like made in conjunction [to] reports of violence that occurred in Newton on February 6, 2015, February 7, 2015, and February 8, 2015." Although citing the reports as irrelevant, the State provided Antonio with the requested activity logs. Antonio also requested NCIC reports2 on fourteen of the State's potential witnesses. The State provided NCIC reports for Antonio's co-defendants James Shorty and James Hall but responded that it did not have reports for the other twelve potential witnesses listed. The court addressed the motions on May 1, 2017, prior to the commencement of the trial.
¶8. On May 1, 2017, Antonio's trial ensued. The jury heard sworn testimony from over thirty witnesses over the course of the proceedings—including Antonio. At the conclusion of the State's case in chief, Antonio motioned the court for a directed verdict. The court denied the motion and allowed the trial to proceed. A unanimous jury acquitted Antonio of conspiracy to commit murder (Count I) but convicted him of murder (Count II) on May 5, 2017. On May 30, 2017, Antonio filed a motion for JNOV or, alternatively, a new trial, which the court denied after a hearing on the matter. Additionally, Antonio filed another post-trial motion for recusal, which the court also denied. On August 15, 2017, the court rendered a final judgment and sentenced Antonio to life imprisonment in the custody of the MDOC. Aggrieved, Antonio Hall now appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶9. In his appeal, Antonio assigns a total of eighteen errors related to the denial of pre-and post-trial motions, as well as voir dire and perceived evidentiary violations. Given the myriad of issues raised in the case sub judice, we have categorized and reorganized Antonio's assignments of error as necessary to facilitate clarity and efficiency.
Likewise, each issue is restated within its respective category for ease of reference.
Issue 1: Whether the circuit court erred in denying Antonio's requests for a change of venue.
¶10. "A change of venue is at ‘the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion or that the discretion has not been justly and properly exercised under the circumstances of the case.’ " Davis v. State , 196 So. 3d 194, 198 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Beech v. Leaf River Forest Prods. , 691 So. 2d 446, 448 (Miss. 1997) ).
¶11. "The accused has a right to a change of venue when it is doubtful that an impartial jury can be obtained." Davis v. State , 767 So. 2d 986, 993 (¶16) (Miss. 2000).
¶12. Mississippi law sets forth a procedure for defendants to establish a requisite presumption that an impartial jury is beyond reach in their current venue. "[A] motion for change of venue must be in writing and supported by affidavits of two or more credible persons showing that the defendant cannot receive an impartial and fair trial in that particular county because of prejudgment of the case or grudge or ill will to the defendant in the mind of the public." Gray v. State , 799 So. 2d 53, 62 (¶33) (Miss. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Davis , 767 So. 2d at 993 (¶15) ); see Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-35 (Rev. 2015).
¶13. This presumption, however, may be rebutted by the State upon proof that an impartial jury was impaneled during voir dire. Holland v. State , 705 So. 2d 307, 336 (¶97) (Miss. 1997).
¶14. In his first assignment of error, Antonio argues that the court erred in denying his pre-trial "Motion for Change of Venue." In his motion, Antonio cited several local news outlets reporting the murder. Consistent with the procedure outlined above, Antonio provided supporting affidavits from his mother (Arbedella Armstrong) and James Shorty's mother (Ruthie Lee Hall). Antonio's supporting affidavits and arguments at the motion hearing, much like those on appeal, rely primarily on anticipated gang retaliation and threats of violence made against Antonio's family. The court concluded that a change of venue would not "cure or prevent alleged retaliation" and reiterated that the purpose of a venue change is to "be certain that the defendant can obtain a fair and impartial jury." At the venue hearing, though seemingly unpersuaded by Antonio's arguments, the court, out of an "abundance of caution," held the motion in abeyance until after voir dire.
¶15. Antonio now argues that the court erred by waiting until after voir dire to grant a ruling on the venue motion, citing the State's alleged failure to "rebut the assertion of violent threats and actual violence against the family member of [Antonio]." Antonio relies on Davis , 196 So. 3d at 199 (¶22), where this court found that "the trial court erred in denying the motion for change of venue in light of the fact that the State failed to rebut the presumption that arose upon Davis's application for a change of venue." In Davis , the defendant was a public official entangled in a scandal involving the misuse of public funds. Id. Davis was able to establish that there had been a plethora of news coverage related to his arrest, conviction, divorce, sexual orientation, and even an unrelated lawsuit; the stories were heavily televised and run in the local newspapers.
Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
... ... Analysis I. Discovery Violation 47. "It is well established that the State has a duty to turn over all exculpatory material relevant to a defendant's case." 307 So.3d 495 Hall v. State , No. 2017-KA-00924-COA, 295 So.3d 544, 555 (25) (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2019). This mandate has been the law for over fifty years since Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), where the United States Supreme Court held that due process requires the ... ...
-
Vasser v. State
...So. 2d 676, 678 (¶3) (Miss. 2003) ). We use abuse of discretion as the standard of review in examining the conduct of voir dire. Hall v. State , 295 So. 3d 544, 559 (¶45) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019). "Abuse of discretion will only be found where a defendant shows clear prejudice resulting from un......
-
Goff v. State
...¶21. "A trial court's judgment is presumptively correct[,] and the appellant must demonstrate reversible error to this Court." Hall v. State , 295 So. 3d 544, 554 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Lenard v. State , 812 So. 2d 1097, 1102 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) ). When challenging the......
-
Jones v. Jones
...¶8. "A trial court's judgment is presumptively correct and the appellant must demonstrate reversible error to this Court." Hall v. State , 295 So. 3d 544, 554 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019). "The transcript of evidence is necessary for the Court to properly evaluate ... assignments of error, a......