Queen v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019-KA-01855-SCT,2019-KA-01855-SCT |
| Parties | Tommie QUEEN a/k/a Tommy Queen a/k/a Tommie Lee Queen v. STATE of Mississippi |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DAMON RAMON STEVENSON, Jackson
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BRITTNEY SHARAE EAKINS
BEFORE KING, P.J., COLEMAN AND BEAM, JJ.
¶1. Tommie Queen was convicted of three counts of dog fighting in violation of Mississippi Code Section 97-41-19 (Rev. 2014). Queen now appeals and argues that the trial court erred by admitting expert testimony, that there was not a sufficient evidentiary basis to support his convictions, and that the trial judge erred by not recusing. Finding no error, we affirm Queen's convictions and sentences.
¶2. On the night of November 6, 2017, the Adams County Sheriff's Office received a call in reference to dogs barking and possible dog fighting. Deputy Thomas McGinty was dispatched to the address indicated, 29 1/2 Miracle Road, Adams County, Mississippi. Deputy McGinty was unsuccessful at establishing contact with anybody at the residence. When he walked to the back of the house, he observed multiple dogs that were on chains and a few that were not. Deputy McGinty testified that multiple dogs were fighting during the time that he was on the property. Deputy McGinty made contact with a neighbor and determined that Queen owned 29 1/2 Miracle Road.
¶3. Deputy Stephen Karabelen was stationed at 29 1/2 Miracle Road on the night of November 6 to preserve the integrity of the property until daylight, when a search warrant could be obtained. He testified that 29 1/2 Miracle Road was located at the dead-end of a cul-de-sac. At approximately three o'clock in the morning, Deputy Karabelen noticed a vehicle driving down Miracle Road. He testified that when the vehicle's driver saw his unit, the driver pulled into 29 1/2 Miracle Road and then backed out. Deputy Karabelen flagged down the vehicle and determined that the driver was Queen's girlfriend, Tasia Martin. Martin confirmed that Queen was the owner of the property and stated that she was there to feed the dogs. Martin stated that she would take care of the animals on the property when Queen was out of town.
¶4. After a search warrant was obtained, numerous items, including heavy logging chains, bite sticks, intravenous (IV) bags containing saline, medicine bottles, vials of vitamins, muscle milk and other muscle-building items, several scales, and a treadmill, were seized from the property. Approximately five or six badly injured dogs were taken to a veterinarian, Dr. Robert Savant, and were humanely euthanized. Dr. Savant visited the property the next day and euthanized three more dogs that were seriously injured.
¶5. An Adams County grand jury indicted Queen for nine counts of dog fighting in violation of Mississippi Code Section 97-41-19. Queen was found guilty of counts VII, VIII, and IX and was sentenced to three years on each count to run consecutively.
¶6. Queen now appeals and raises three issues:
¶7. The determination that an expert is qualified in his field "is left to the sound discretion of the trial court." Poirrier v. Degrande , 604 So. 2d 268, 270 (Miss. 1992) (citing Miller ex rel. Miller v. Stiglet, Inc. , 523 So. 2d 55, 58 (Miss. 1988) ). Thus, "[t]he standard of review for the admission or exclusion of evidence, such as expert testimony, is abuse of discretion." Thompson v. Holliman , 283 So. 3d 718, 721 (Miss. 2019) (citing Inv'r Res. Servs., Inc. v. Cato , 15 So. 3d 412, 416 (Miss. 2009)).
¶8. A witness may be qualified "an as expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education ...." MRE 702. The trial court accepted Kyle Held as an expert in the areas of organized dog fighting and animal cruelty. Queen argues that the trial court erred by tendering Held as an expert witness. Queen's contention is without merit.
¶9. Held had been employed for approximately ten years by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) as a regional director of investigation. Held stated that he "respond[ed] to local jurisdictions to help them with animal cruelty cases that they need assistance with due to capacity, education or experience." Prior to his job with ASPCA, Held worked as a statewide investigator for the humane society in Missouri. Held was in that position for eleven years and testified that his responsibilities were much the same as his current job but on the statewide level. Held testified that he was not required to have any certifications to be an animal investigator. However, he stated that his current position as the regional director of investigation required "a considerable amount of education and training."
¶10. Held was nationally certified by the National Animal Control Association. The NACA was not a government organization but was a "group of people who got together and have an organization ...." Held admitted that the certification did not have any relevance to people outside of the organization and that he did not have a specific certification from the state of Mississippi.
¶11. Held had approximately "600 hours of specialized training in animal cruelty, which includes animal fighting, puppy mills, hoarding, several other areas." He had also been an instructor for most of his career in both agencies. Held stated that he was a nationally certified animal-cruelty officer and worked through the Law Enforcement Training Institute of the University of Missouri. Held also was an instructor at the Law Enforcement Training Institute. Additionally, Held had attended ten forty-hour training sessions at the University of Florida and the University of Colorado, and each training session had contained around fifteen hours of training solely dedicated to dog fighting.
¶13. Moreover, Held had testified in approximately one hundred animal-cruelty or animal-fighting cases and had been qualified as an expert around ten times overall and six times specifically in animal fighting. He had been qualified as an expert in Iowa two weeks before this trial in the field of animal cruelty. However, Held had not been certified as an expert in dog fighting since 2013. Held stated that he had not testified as an expert in federal court. Held also testified that he had a technical certification from a technical college and had attended three years of college but did not hold any degrees. He also previously had owned a horse boarding stable and had worked as a veterinary assistant.
¶14. Queen argues that the trial court erred by tendering Held as an expert witness because he did not hold any college degrees, and Held testified that his previous job as an animal-cruelty investigator did not require any type of certification. However, a college degree is not a prerequisite for expert qualification. As previously stated, Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 states that, in addition to education, an expert may be qualified through knowledge, skill, experience, or training. MRE 702. Held had been employed as an animal-cruelty investigator for more than twenty years, during which he assisted law enforcement with animal-cruelty cases. Held also had approximately "600 hours of specialized training in animal cruelty" and had been an instructor for most of his career in both agencies.
¶15. Queen's contention that Held did not know how many hours of training he had specifically in the field of dog fighting lacks merit. Held stated that he had attended ten forty-hour training sessions at the University of Florida and the University of Colorado and that each training session had contained around fifteen hours of training solely dedicated to dog fighting. Held additionally testified that he had investigated dog-fighting cases "probably a few hundred" times over his career. Held also had been the lead investigator in the Missouri 500, which was the largest organized dog-fighting seizure in history at that time. Queen's argument that Held's certification by the National Animal Control Association had no relevance also lacks merit.
¶16. Lastly, Queen takes issue with the fact that Held had never testified as an expert in federal court. Yet Queen failed to cite any authority stating that qualification as an expert in state court hinges on first being qualified as an expert in federal court. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by qualifying Held as an expert in the fields of dog fighting and animal cruelty based on his knowledge, skill, experience, and training.
To continue reading
Request your trial