Willis v. State

• Decision Date: 09 April 2020
• Docket Number: NO. 2018-KA-01509-SCT,2018-KA-01509-SCT
• Citation: Willis v. State, 300 So.3d 999 (Miss. 2020)
• Parties: Michael Shantez WILLIS a/k/a Michael Willis v. STATE of Mississippi
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

300 So.3d 999

Michael Shantez WILLIS a/k/a Michael Willis

v.STATE of Mississippi

NO. 2018-KA-01509-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 9, 2020

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MATT W. KITCHENS

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY, JR.

BEFORE RANDOLPH, C.J., MAXWELL AND BEAM, JJ.

RANDOLPH, CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Michael Willis (Willis) appeals his conviction for aggravated assault. Counsel for his codefendant and nephew Kedarious Willis (Kedarious) filed a Lindsey¹ brief in our Court of Appeals averring that there were no meritorious arguments for appeal. See Willis v. State , 282 So. 3d 1283 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019). After reviewing the errors Willis alleges, we find no merit to his arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Copiah County Circuit Court.

FACTS

¶2. On December 2, 2017, Travell Moore and Kedarious got into a fight at a Crystal Springs barbershop. The fight was precipitated by a claim that Travell had stolen a radio from Willis's car. After the fight broke up, Kedarious drove to his aunt's home. Subsequently, he and Willis drove to Kedarious's grandmother's home on Jordan Street.

¶3. Travell testified that he went to his brother-in-law's house on Jordan Street. Travell was playing dominoes outside surrounded by a large crowd of people by the time Kedarious and Willis drove by the house. Travell removed his shirt and went out in the street to confront Kedarious and Willis.

¶4. Testimony from Travell and other witnesses was divided over whether Willis then got out of the car and argued with Travell before they reached Kedarious's grandmother's home or if Travell followed them down to Kedarious's grandmother's home. Regardless, the confrontation between Travell and Willis was renewed in front of Kedarious's grandmother's home. Kedarious was standing nearby at his parked car.

¶5. Travell claimed that at some point he turned his back to Willis and then heard Willis say, "shoot, shoot." Travell tried to run but was struck by several bullets, falling at the next-door neighbor's driveway. Kedarious said he saw Travell pull the handle of a gun from his pocket. Kedarious claims he then pulled out his own weapon and started shooting wildly in fear for his life.

¶6. Travell was taken to University of Mississippi Medical Center where he was treated for a collapsed lung and a lacerated liver. His spinal cord was severed, resulting in paralysis. Willis and Kedarious were indicted for aggravated assault and conspiracy. At trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on both counts, and the conspiracy count was dismissed. Before giving jury instructions, the State received a report that one juror had been in contact with Travell's twin brother. After examining the juror, the defense requested that she be removed from the jury. The State agreed, and the alternate was seated.

¶7. The jury found both defendants guilty of aggravated assault. Willis was sentenced to twenty years in prison as a habitual offender. Willis now appeals.

ISSUES PRESENTED

¶8. A series of issues is presented on appeal:

I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by barring reference to Travell's earlier conviction and the frequency of his drug use?

II. Did the trial court improperly rule Travell's medical records inadmissible?

III. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing the State to present Jenica Powell as a rebuttal witness?

IV. Did the trial court improperly prevent Willis from referencing the trial court's ruling dismissing the conspiracy count in Willis's closing argument?

V. Was the evidence legally sufficient to support Willis's conviction for aggravated assault?

VI. Did the trial court err by not granting Willis's motion for a new trial in light of the alleged contact between a juror and the victim's twin brother?

VII. Was Willis's twenty-year sentence as a habitual offender for aiding or abetting commission of aggravated assault excessive, unreasonable, cruel and unusual, or grossly disproportionate?

VIII. Miscellaneous arguments

ANALYSIS

I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by barring reference to Travell's earlier conviction and the frequency of his drug use?

¶9. Willis argues that the trial court improperly prevented him from utilizing three impeachment items: (1) facts related to Travell's 2015 felony conviction for breaking into a car; (2) Travell's frequency of drug use; and (3) questioning other witnesses regarding Travell's drug use. Willis fails to provide argument regarding (3), thus we decline to address it. "This Court reviews the trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard of review." Smith v. State , 986 So. 2d 290, 295 (Miss. 2008) (citing Jones v. State , 962 So. 2d 1263, 1268 (Miss. 2007) ). A court abuses its discretion by relying on an erroneous statement of the law or applying improper or erroneous facts. Overton v. State , 195 So. 3d 715, 725 (Miss. 2016) (quoting Abuse of Discretion , Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)).

¶10. At trial, the State asked Travell whether he had a criminal record. Travell equivocally responded that he had been to prison once for domestic abuse. The State later objected to Willis's questions regarding a separate 2015 felony conviction on relevance grounds. Defense counsel responded, "[h]e went into it on direct. But it's relevant. The second [felony] is breaking into a car and stealing something, which is exactly what he's accused of doing. It shows his MO. It's one of the exceptions." After further colloquy with the trial judge, Willis's attorney argued,

It tells a story, Judge, what got it started. That's what they were mad at each other about. He said they had a beef in opening because of this event, and I'm just pointing out that this is the man – he says he didn't do it. He just testified he didn't break into the car on direct. I'm saying, well, he has a prior conviction for doing the same thing.

Willis attempted to introduce facts related to a 2015 conviction as substantive evidence of Travell's propensity for committing a similar act, i.e., he breaks into cars and steals radios. Because that was the position advanced at the trial court, Willis cannot not now claim that the evidence was for impeachment of Travell's character for truthfulness. Tate v. State , 912 So. 2d 919, 928 (Miss. 2005) ("Issues not brought before the trial court are deemed waived and may not be raised for the first time on appeal." (citing Wilcher v. State , 479 So. 2d 710, 712 (Miss. 1985) )); see also Smith , 986 So. 2d at 295 ("This Court cannot find that a trial judge committed reversible error on a matter not brought before him or her to consider." (citing Montgomery v. State , 891 So. 2d 179, 187 (Miss. 2004) ; Stringer v. State , 279 So. 2d 156, 158 (Miss. 1973) )).

¶11. Further, the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provide, "[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." Miss. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Because the facts regarding a prior conviction were inadmissible for the purpose declared, the trial judge cannot be said to have abused his discretion for ruling the evidence inadmissible.

¶12. Next, Willis avers that the trial judge impermissibly restrained the scope of cross-examination. The State objected to a question posed by counsel representing Kedarious. Counsel asked, "Now, how frequently were you using drugs then?" The State requested to approach the bench, and the trial judge responded to the State with the word "sustain." Willis now argues that this ruling by the trial court reduced the efficacy of testimony from Kedarious's expert, Dr. Valentine. Dr. Valentine testified regarding the effect of cocaine and marijuana on chronic and occasional users and the likelihood that Travell had used cocaine or marijuana the day of the incident. This testimony directly contradicted Travell's earlier testimony that he had not used cocaine or marijuana the day of the incident.

¶13. Dr. Valentine opined that Travell was experiencing the effects of cocaine and marijuana at the time of the incident. He testified about what that could do to Travell's state of mind. The trial court's unrelated ruling did not limit the scope of the evidence Willis and Kedarious introduced. If there was any error at all, it was harmless. See Conners v. State , 92 So. 3d 676, 684 (Miss. 2012) (stating that harmless errors are errors that are not important or not significant when considering the context of the case and its result). Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion.

II. Did the trial court improperly rule Travell's medical records inadmissible?

¶14. Willis next argues that the trial court improperly ruled Travell's medical records inadmissible and improperly restricted the defense's ability to reference the records in questioning witnesses. The State argues that the trial court properly ruled the records inadmissible because they were not certified in accordance with Mississippi Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(11). Willis does not dispute this. Willis instead complains that the State should have had the records certified since the State was forced to subpoena them by the trial court and that Willis should not have been penalized by the court's refusal to admit the records.

¶15. On July 16, 2018, Willis's counsel stated that he had possession of the medical records but that they were not certified. In preparing for voir dire on July 23, 2018, the court learned that the medical records were not certified and continued the trial. It was not until August 7, 2018, after the State had finished its case-in-chief, that Willis's counsel again complained about the records’ not being admitted.

The trial court replied, "[c]ounsel, if you recall, we were in court a week ago, and I don't know how I could have been any clearer in explaining that if you can qualify those records under the medical...