Sirnardo James Moffett v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-KA-00175-COA
SIRNARDO JAMES MOFFETT
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
10/05/2006
HON. L. BRELAND HILBURN
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
KATE S. EIDT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
ELEANOR FAYE PETERSON
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF CAPITAL MURDER AND
SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER
TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AFFIRMED – 02/24/2009
EN BANC.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Sinardo James Moffett was convicted by a jury of capital murder and sentenced by
the Hinds County Circuit Court as a habitual offender to life imprisonment in the custody
of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Aggrieved, Moffett appeals and asserts: (1)
that the trial court erred in allowing his codefendant to testify when the State knew that the
codefendant would invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, (2) that
he was denied effective assistance of counsel, (3) that the verdict was against the
overwhelming weight of the evidence,1 and (4) that the cumulative effect of errors at trial
warrants a new trial.
¶2.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶3.
During the early morning hours of July 21, 2003, officers of the Jackson Police
Department found Germane Turner’s body in his sport utility vehicle (SUV) that was parked
in Jayne Park in Jackson, Mississippi. It was later determined that Turner had died from a
gunshot wound to the chest. On January 9, 2004, arrest warrants were obtained for Eric
Robinson and Moffett. On April 6, 2004, Moffett and Robinson, who is Moffett’s brotherin-law, were indicted for Turner’s murder. Robinson entered into a plea agreement, but
Moffett went to trial and was convicted of capital murder.
¶4.
Latisha Williams, Turner’s live-in girlfriend, testified at trial about the last time that
she spoke to Turner.2 Around 11:00 p.m. on July 20, 2003, Williams called Turner on his
1
Moffett frames this issue in terms of the verdict being against the overwhelming
weight of the evidence but makes a sufficiency argument in the body of the discussion. A
“weight argument” implicates the propriety of granting a new trial, while a sufficiency
argument challenges the propriety of the verdict, as well as the State’s right to retry the case.
Since it is clear from Moffett’s brief that his argument addresses the sufficiency of the
evidence rather than the weight, we recast this issue as one of sufficiency of the evidence and
will address it as such.
2
Williams and Turner lived with Williams’s aunt at the time that he was killed.
2
cellular telephone and asked him to bring home some milk. At approximately 3:00 a.m.,
Williams heard Turner’s vehicle pull into the driveway. Williams recalled that the vehicle
ran for approximately ten to fifteen minutes before it pulled off. Williams stated that she
thought that Turner had left to go to the store.
¶5.
According to Williams, she waited a few minutes and then called Turner again on his
cellular telephone. Turner did not answer. Williams then went to the kitchen, looked out
of the window, and saw what appeared to be Turner’s clothing lying in the driveway. This
discovery prompted Williams to take a closer look. Williams testified that she then went
outside and confirmed that the clothing belonged to Turner. Williams called Turner again,
and this time a man, who identified himself as Larry, answered. Williams testified that she
asked the man where Turner was and that he told her that Turner had gone into a store.
Williams called Turner’s telephone several more times, and the man who had identified
himself as Larry, answered it each time. Williams continued calling Turner’s telephone, and
eventually someone else answered. The person who answered this time informed Williams
that Turner had gone into a store and had left his telephone in the car. Williams testified that
she asked that person to tell Turner to call “Tasha.”3 Williams testified that she continued
to call Turner’s telephone but could not get anyone else to answer. Williams then called the
police.
¶6.
Officer Abraham Gerome Thompson with the JPD, testified that he responded to a
3
It is not clear whether Williams was referring to herself, as the record indicates that
her first name is Latisha, not Tasha.
3
missing-persons call during the early morning hours of July 21, 2003. Williams gave Officer
Thompson Turner’s clothing that she had found in the driveway. Officer Thompson then
called Turner’s cellular telephone, but he did not get an answer. Thereafter, Williams and
Officer Thompson went outside. Shortly thereafter, Williams’s aunt told her that a lady who
claimed to have found Turner’s telephone had called.
¶7.
Officer Thompson noticed what appeared to be blood in the driveway. He also
noticed that a shrub that was adjacent to the driveway had been trampled. Upon closer
examination, Officer Thompson saw that the shrub had blood on it as well. Officer
Thompson surmised that an altercation had occurred. According to Officer Thompson, the
clothing that was recovered from the scene had dirt stains on it. Officer Thompson also
recovered a gold necklace in the grass near the shrub, and a bag that contained a leafy green
substance. On cross-examination, Officer Thompson stated that he did not know whether
any DNA analysis was conducted because he turned the clothing over to officers with the
Mobile Crime Lab.
¶8.
Investigator Jeffrey Scott4 arrived at Williams’s house to assist Officer Thompson.
Investigator Scott testified that he observed small blood spatters in the driveway and that
Officer Thompson informed him that clothing had been recovered. Investigator Scott stated
that he then took over the investigation. According to Investigator Scott, it appeared that
Turner had been involved in a struggle. Investigator Scott also recalled that the clothing had
4
At the time of trial, Investigator Scott was sergeant over the JPD’s burglary unit;
however, on July 21, 2003, he served as a crime scene investigator.
4
grass and bloodstains on it. Investigator Scott conducted a walk-through of the crime scene
and observed a plastic bottle lying in the driveway next to a pool of blood. He collected and
secured the bottle and samples of the blood. Investigator Scott also stated that he was
training James Chambers, a crime scene investigator with the JPD, and that it was Chambers
who had collected the evidence. Investigator Scott was then advised that a SUV had been
discovered in the parking lot of Jayne Park, which is located behind the JPD’s training
academy. Investigator Scott arrived at the park and noticed Turner’s body in the back seat
of the SUV. Turner was wearing only boxer underwear and tennis shoes.
¶9.
On cross-examination, Investigator Scott testified that he documented the evidence,
which included three cellular telephones, that was collected from the parking lot where
Turner’s SUV was found. He noted that two of the telephones were found inside of the
vehicle, and one was found outside of the vehicle. He testified that the telephones were not
dusted for fingerprints. The defense pointed out that Investigator Scott had stated in his
report that thirty latent prints were collected from the SUV and sent to the JPD’s
identification unit for further analysis. Investigator Scott testified that he did not know what
had happened to the prints after they were collected. It was also brought out that Investigator
Scott collected blood from a stain on the rear passenger door and that he did not know
whether it had been tested for DNA. Additionally, a blood-stained ten-dollar bill was found
on the floorboard of the back seat, and a .380 shell casing was found underneath the driver’s
seat. The shell casing was sent to the lab for fingerprint analysis. Investigator Scott also
5
clarified his earlier testimony and stated that Turner’s body was actually found in between
the front and back seats, not solely in the back seat as he had testified on direct.
¶10.
Mary Ridley, supervisor of the JPD’s communication department, was also present
at Williams’s residence during the early morning hours of July 21, 2003. She testified that
she instructed the officers to investigate what was considered at that point to be a missingpersons case. Thereafter, an all-points bulletin was issued for Turner’s SUV. Officers then
received a report that a lady, who would later be identified as Labertha Mosby, had found
a cellular telephone while she walked on the track at Jayne Park. When JPD officer Shaun
Terwilliger went to look for Mosby, he saw a Chevrolet Suburban matching the description
of Turner’s SUV parked in the parking lot of the police training academy.5 Officer
Terwilliger found Mosby, and she turned the cellular telephone over to him.
¶11.
Prior to going to Jayne Park, Investigator Chambers also assisted in the investigation
at Williams’s residence.
In large part, Investigator Chambers’s testimony mirrored
Investigator Scott’s. Thus, we will briefly summarize Investigator Chambers’s testimony
as it relates to details not covered by Investigator Scott.
¶12.
Investigator Chambers stated that he then went to the park and saw Turner’s nearly
naked body lying on the back seat of Turner’s SUV. He also observed that the radio had
5
Although Officer Terwilliger testified that the SUV was found in the parking lot of
the police training academy, all other witnesses testified that the SUV was found at Jayne
Park. Officer Terwilliger’s testimony — that the SUV was found in the parking lot of the
police academy rather than at Jayne Park — may be explained by the fact that a building
identified as property of the academy is located in Jayne Park.
6
been ripped out of the vehicle. Investigator Chambers testified that a projectile was
recovered from the SUV.6 Investigator Chambers also testified that he and another officer
collected approximately thirty fingerprints from the vehicle; however, he stated that he did
not know whether any of the prints were useable. On cross-examination, he stated that they
packaged the cellular telephones and the latent prints that were recovered from the SUV.
Investigator Chambers further stated that the telephones and prints were sent to the crime lab
for testing.
¶13.
The State also called Robinson as a witness; however, he pleaded the Fifth
Amendment to essentially every question that he was asked. The judge informed Robinson
that his refusal to testify constituted a violation of his plea agreement, and as a result, the
court would be allowed to revisit his sentencing, which could result in his receiving an
enhanced sentence. Thereafter, Moffett’s attorney moved for the court to instruct the jury
that no inference was to be drawn from Robinson’s pleading the Fifth Amendment.
¶14.
Detective James Roberts with the JPD, lead detective in this case, testified that he was
dispatched to Jayne Park where he observed Turner’s body and concluded that Turner had
been involved in a physical altercation prior to his death. Detective Roberts testified that he
spoke with Williams and that she advised him to contact the Edwards Police Department.
Detective Roberts went to the Edwards Police Department and spoke with Officer A.B.
6
The projectile was recovered after the SUV had been impounded.
7
Roper who told him that Robinson may have been involved in Turner’s murder.7 Detective
Roberts then spoke with Robinson; however, Robinson did not admit to any involvement in
the murder. Also, during the course of his investigation, Detective Roberts learned that a
man named Rodrick Barnes had been with Moffett on the night that Turner was murdered.8
Detective Roberts said that he then focused on Robinson and Moffett because Barnes
informed him that Robinson and Moffett were present when the murder occurred.9 Detective
Roberts testified that he interviewed Moffett and that Moffett did not indicate that he was
involved in Turner’s murder in any way.10 Moffett, claimed that he had been at home on the
night of the incident and that he had left only for a brief period of time to meet his mother
at the Masonic Temple.11 Detective Roberts also stated that Moffett provided a written
7
The State also called Officer Roper, a patrolman, to the stand, and he testified about
an incident that occurred in mid-June 2003. Officer Roper stated that he was on patrol at a
convenience store when he encountered a bloodied, tattered Robinson. Officer Roper stated
that Robinson told him that Turner had “jumped on him.” Further, Officer Roper testified
that Robinson declined to file a report against Turner. According to Officer Roper, Robinson
did not provide any details about the attack, but he mentioned that a baseball bat had been
involved.
8
Turner, Moffett, Robinson, and Barnes are all originally from Edwards, Mississippi.
9
Detective Roberts also testified that he began to suspect that Robinson was involved
in the murder because he had learned that Robinson and Turner had been involved in a “prior
negative incident.” On cross-examination, Detective Roberts admitted that he also had
learned from an interview with a man named Nick Thompson that Barnes also had been
involved in a “prior negative incident.”
10
Moffett came voluntarily to the JPD after he learned that Detective Roberts had
been asking about him.
11
Mary Moffett, Moffett’s mother, testified on behalf of the defense and agreed that
she had attended a function at the Masonic Temple on the night of July 20, 2003; however,
8
statement wherein he denied having any involvement in Turner’s death.12
¶15.
Detective Roberts also recalled that fingerprints were recovered from Turner’s vehicle
and that they were sent to the identification unit where they were processed. Detective
Roberts stated that the prints were run through an automatic fingerprint comparison
computer. Detective Roberts also stated that he requested that the prints be manually
compared with Robinson’s and Moffett’s prints. However, according to Melvin Jones, a
JPD fingerprint analyst who testified for the defense, none of the prints were a match for
either Moffett, Robinson, or Barnes.
¶16.
Robin Mosley, a friend of Turner’s, also testified on behalf of the State. Mosley
stated that on the night of the murder, he and Turner had gone to Club Cartier (the club) and
that they stayed for approximately four hours. Mosley also testified that he and Turner then
went to Mosley’s home and smoked marijuana. Mosley recalled that Turner left at
approximately 2:30 a.m.
¶17.
On cross-examination, the defense pointed out that Mosley’s trial testimony, as it
related to the time that Turner left his home, differed slightly from his written statement that
he had provided on the night of the incident. The defense noted that in his written statement
Mosley stated that he and Turner stayed at the club until almost 3:00 a.m. and that he and
she stated that she left with an individual who had also attended the function. Mary stated
that she did not see Moffett that night.
12
Although mentioned throughout trial, the record before us does not contain any
written or video-taped statements.
9
Turner then went to Mosley’s house, where they remained for another thirty minutes until
Turner received a call from Williams.
¶18.
Barnes, who prior to trial identified Moffett in a lineup, also testified on behalf of the
State. Barnes stated that he met Moffett and Robinson at the club on the night of Turner’s
murder. He had gone there with a friend.13 According to Barnes, he left the club with
Robinson and Moffett after Robinson asked him if he wanted to “ride with them and drink
some beer.” Barnes testified that Turner drove past them in his SUV as they were riding
around. Barnes stated that Robinson, the driver, turned his vehicle around and followed
Turner. Barnes testified that they continued to follow Turner until Turner made it to
Turner’s home, at which point Robinson and Moffett got out of their vehicle and attacked
Turner, who had also exited his SUV. Barnes recalled that Robinson hit Turner a couple of
times with a baseball bat and that Moffett hit him with a pistol. Barnes stated that Robinson
and Moffett then removed Turner’s clothing, put Turner in the back of Turner’s SUV, and
drove off with him. Robinson was driving and Moffett was sitting in the front seat. Barnes
testified that he never saw Turner again, although Turner appeared to be alive when
Robinson and Moffett drove off with him. At that point, Barnes ran away, but he came in
contact with Robinson and Moffett again. When he encountered them, they were removing
the speakers and a television from Turner’s SUV. Barnes stated that he was then forced, at
13
Barnes was already at the club when Robinson and Moffett arrived.
10
gunpoint, to get into the car with Robinson and Moffett.14 They took Barnes to his home in
Edwards after telling him that he would be killed if he told anyone what had transpired.
Barnes stated that initially he did not tell anyone about what had happened because he feared
for his life. However, Barnes eventually provided a written statement to the police on
January 8, 2004.
¶19.
Barnes was adamant that he saw Moffett, not Robinson, with a gun. Barnes testified
that he did not witness the shooting and that Robinson never told him who had shot Turner.
However, on cross-examination, Barnes testified that Robinson had admitted to him that
Robinson was the shooter.
¶20.
Dr. Steven Hayne, the last witness called by the State, testified that he performed an
autopsy on Turner. Dr. Hayne recalled that Turner had several cuts, scrapes, scratches, and
bruises on his face. Dr. Hayne also noted that Turner suffered multiple abrasions to his back,
chest, arm, and leg. However, Dr. Hayne was clear that these injuries did not cause Turner’s
death. Rather, he concluded that Turner died from a gunshot that struck him in the left chest
cavity. Dr. Hayne testified that the shooter had been very close to Turner when the shot was
fired, because there were unburnt fragments of gunpowder around the entrance wound.
According to Dr. Hayne, the bullet entered Turner’s body on the left side of the chest wall
and exited on the right side of the back.
14
While it is not entirely clear in the record, it appears that the car was the same car
that Barnes, Robinson, and Moffett had been riding in when Turner passed them.
11
¶21.
The defense presented five witnesses: Melvin Jones, Kimela Moffett,15 Mary,
Shatequa Harrison, and Joseph Wilson. Kimela testified that Moffett left their residence at
approximately 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, July 20, 2003, to see if his mom needed a ride home
from the Masonic Temple. Kimela stated that Moffett returned approximately thirty minutes
later and that he remained there for the rest of the night. Kimela testified that she talked on
the telephone for a while before going to bed and that Moffett had already fallen asleep by
the time she went to bed. Kimela stated that, to her knowledge, Moffett did not leave their
home the rest of the night.
¶22.
Harrison, Moffett’s sister, testified that on July 20, 2003, she went to Moffett’s home
at approximately 5:00 p.m. Harrison stated that she left Moffett’s home at approximately
11:30 p.m. and at that time, Moffett was lying in his bed. However, on cross-examination,
Harrison admitted that she did not know whether Moffett left after she returned to her home.
¶23.
Wilson testified that he had been at the Masonic Temple on the evening of July 20,
2003, and that he saw Moffett come in, speak with a lady, and immediately turn around and
leave. Wilson stated that he then engaged the lady in conversation and that she informed
him that Moffett was looking for Moffett’s mother. Wilson further testified that the lady told
him that she had informed Moffett that his mother was not there because she was under the
impression that Moffett’s mother had left with Wilson. According to Wilson, he then went
15
Kimela is Moffett’s wife. In the trial transcript, her name is spelled Camella.
However, the record contains a letter written by her wherein she signs her name Kimela.
Thus, we assume that Kimela’s name is misspelled in the transcript and will refer to her as
Kimela.
12
outside and tried to get Moffett’s attention, but Moffett did not see him.
¶24.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the case was submitted to the jury, and Moffett was
found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
1. Invocation of the Fifth Amendment by the Codefendant
¶25.
Outside the presence of the jury, the State brought to the court’s attention that it had
learned that Robinson had decided not to testify against Moffett, even though the previous
week he had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and kidnapping in a plea agreement with the
State that required him to testify fully and truthfully concerning Turner’s murder. The trial
judge allowed the State to call Robinson to the stand as a hostile witness, and Robinson
pleaded the Fifth Amendment to essentially every question that he was asked. The record
reflects that Robinson even pleaded the Fifth Amendment when he was asked his name. He
answered only one question, and that question was whether he had entered a guilty plea on
September 26, 2006, in regard to the murder of Germane Turner. He answered that question
in the affirmative, but he refused to even state what he pleaded guilty to. A review of the
transcript does not reveal any questions that tended to implicate Moffett. On crossexamination, Robinson also refused to testify as to what his sentence was.
¶26.
Moffett directs our attention to United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir.
1978) and argues that the trial judge erred in allowing the State to call Robinson to the stand
when the State knew that Robinson intended to plead the Fifth Amendment.
¶27.
We find the facts in Beechum inapposite to our case. In Beechum, the defendant,
13
Orange Jell Beechum, who was charged with unlawful possession of a valuable coin that he
knew was stolen from the mail, took the witness stand and testified in his defense. While
testifying on cross-examination, he repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment in an attempt
to avoid answering the prosecutor’s questions about two credit cards, not belonging to him,
that were found in his possession when he was arrested. Id. at 905. In finding that the
Government was entitled to question Beechum about possession of the credit cards and that
Beechum’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated, the Beechum court, citing United
States v. Ritz, 548 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1977) and United States v. Maloney, 262 F.2d 535 (2d
Cir. 1959), observed that “[i]t is impermissibly prejudicial for the Government to attempt to
influence the jury by calling a witness it knows will invoke the [F[ifth [A]mendment.”
Beechum, 582 F.2d at 908-09. Additionally, the Beechum court, citing United States v.
Lacouture, 495 F.2d 1237 (5th Cir. 1974), noted that “where the government witness
indicates beforehand that he will invoke the privilege, the court may properly refuse to allow
him to testify before the jury” but that the case before it was not such a case. Beechum, 582
F. 2d at 909.
¶28.
Here, Moffett did not testify. The person that invoked the Fifth Amendment, albeit
without a legitimate basis, was a witness called by the State. The witness, Robinson, had
waived his right against self-incrimination when he pleaded guilty the week prior to trial.
Therefore, he could have been compelled to testify or held in contempt for not during so.16
16
If an attempt had been made to compel Robinson’s testimony, it should have
occurred outside the presence of the jury. If Robinson still persisted in not testifying, he
should not have been called to the witness stand. However, it would have been quite proper
to send him to jail until he decided to testify because he had no Fifth Amendment right not
14
Nevertheless, that did not happened. The State did not ask the court to compel Robinson to
testify. Rather, the State asked permission to treat Robinson as a hostile witness. The court
granted the request, and thereafter, the State asked several leading questions, to which
Robinson pleaded the Fifth Amendment.
¶29.
The purpose of prohibiting the State from calling a witness that the State knows will
plead the Fifth Amendment is to prevent unfair prejudice from flowing inferentially to the
defendant as a result of the witness’s refusal to answer the prosecutor’s questions. While the
jury may presume what the answer would have been, the defendant is unable to crossexamine the witness on the presumed responses.
¶30.
It is proper here to ask, preliminarily, whether the record supports the conclusion that
the State intentionally sought an unfair advantage. We find nothing in the record to suggest
that it did. After learning that Robinson was going to invoke the Fifth Amendment, the State
made inquiry to the court concerning the proper procedure to follow. The court provided no
guidance. While the court has no obligation to assist the State in the presentation of the
State’s case, it does have an obligation to see that a defendant receives a fair trial. After the
State received no guidance from the court, it asked permission to call Robinson as a hostile
witness. It seems quite certain to us that the State knows that it cannot call as a hostile
witness any witness who has a legitimate Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Therefore,
the State’s asking permission to call Robinson as a hostile witness suggests that the State was
simply befuddled about the situation that it found itself in as a result of Robinson’s sudden
to testify.
15
about-face, not that the State was seeking to gain an unfair advantage in its case against
Moffett.
¶31.
Since Robinson was improperly allowed to get away with not testifying, resulting
presumably in the prejudicial inference discussed above, the question becomes did reversible
error occur as a result of the process. We find that it did not. First, we note that Moffett’s
attorney did not object to Robinson being called to the witness stand and being questioned
in front of the jury. In fact Moffett’s attorney suggested that that was the proper procedure.
Second, Moffett’s attorney cross-examined Robinson and attempted to elicit testimony
beneficial to Moffett’s defense. For example, the record reflects the following exchange
between Moffett’s attorney and Robinson:
Q.
And in [the plea qualification] proceeding did you indicate that Mr.
Moffett was not with you that night?
A.
I plead the Fifth.
Third, we find that even in the absence of the prejudicial inference that may have been drawn
by the jury from Robinson’s refusal to testify, there was other evidence that was sufficient
to support the jury’s verdict. Barnes gave compelling and convincing evidence of Moffett’s
guilt. He identified Moffett as a participant in a brutal attack on Turner which occurred just
hours before Turner’s body was found with a bullet hole in the chest. Further, the body was
found in Turner’s SUV which, according to Barnes, was the vehicle that Moffett and
Robinson placed Turner in and drove off in after the vicious assault. The killing was the
only thing that Barnes did not witness. However, he provided enough evidence for a
reasonable jury to conclude that Moffett and Robinson were the killers.
16
¶32.
This issue is without merit.
2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶33.
Moffett argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial
attorney did not object to the State’s calling Robinson to the stand. We cannot conclude that
his counsel’s action constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. It is clear that Moffett’s
attorney thought that she might be able to elicit testimony from Robinson that would be
helpful to Moffett, and she had good reason to think so. Robinson and Moffett are brotherin-laws. The brief exchange between Moffett’s counsel and Robinson that is quoted above
supports the notion that Moffett’s counsel thought Robinson just might testify that Moffett
was not with him at the time that Turner was murdered. This issue lacks merit.
3. Sufficiency of the Evidence
¶34.
In this issue, Moffett argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction
because (1) no fingerprints or DNA evidence connected him to Turner’s SUV, (2) the
fingerprints that were recovered were not generally compared with the fingerprints in the
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC), (3) the
officers failed to investigate his alibi, and (4) the State’s main witness did not witness the
shooting.
¶35.
In order to succeed on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction, Moffett must prove that no “rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Smith v. State, 925 So. 2d 825, 830 (¶10)
(Miss. 2006) (quoting Brown v. State, 907 So. 2d 336, 339 (¶8) (Miss. 2005)). Challenges
to the sufficiency of the evidence are viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Id.
17
Therefore, we “must accept as true all evidence consistent with the defendant’s guilt,
together with all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence, and
disregard the evidence favorable to the defendant.” Robinson v. State, 940 So. 2d 235, 240
(¶13) (Miss. 2006) (citing McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993)). The trial
court’s decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Smith, 925 So. 2d at 830
(¶10) (citing Brown, 907 So. 2d at 339 (¶8)). “As long as ‘reasonable fair-minded men in
the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions on every element of the
offense,’ [then] the evidence will be deemed to have been sufficient.” Id. (quoting Edwards
v. State, 469 So. 2d 69, 70 (Miss. 1985)).
¶36.
We find Moffett’s first argument — that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his
conviction because none of the fingerprints that were recovered from Turner’s SUV are a
match for his — unpersuasive. There could be any number of reasons why there was no
fingerprint match, but the failure to find a match does not, in the least, prove that Moffett did
not commit the murder. Barnes’s testimony alone provided an ample evidentiary basis in
support of the verdict.
¶37.
As for Moffett’s argument that his fingerprints were not submitted for general
comparison to all persons in the NCIC, we fail to see how this omission would have helped
Moffett since his prints did not match any of the prints that were found. Apparently,
Moffett’s reasoning is that had a comparison been made, perhaps a match with some other
person would have been found. Even so, that would not have exonerated Moffett based on
the other evidence that was offered against him. Further, even if a match to some other
person would have been found, that fact alone would not prove that that person committed
18
the murder. We find no merit to this issue.
¶38.
Moffett’s next argument, that the police did not investigate his alibi, is simply untrue.
As previously stated, Detective Roberts interviewed Kimela, who testified that Moffett was
at home with her when she retired for the night. Obviously, if the jury believed Kimela’s
testimony, it also must have concluded that Moffett left their home at some point after she
fell asleep. This issue lacks merit.
¶39.
Moffett also argues that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
was the shooter. Barnes provided a detailed account of what transpired on the night that
Turner was murdered. Although Barnes conceded that he did not witness the shooting, we
note that he testified that Robinson and Moffett: (1) inflicted a beating upon Turner prior to
his death, (2) put Turner in the back of Turner’s SUV against his will, and (3) stole speakers
and a television from Turner’s SUV. It is well settled that “when two or more persons act
in concert, with a common design, in committing a crime of violence upon others, and a
homicide committed by one of them is incident to the execution of the common design, both
are criminally liable for the homicide.” Price v. State, 362 So. 2d 204, 205 (Miss. 1978)
(citing McNeer v. State, 228 Miss. 308, 314, 87 So. 2d 568, 570 (1956)). Therefore, even
though Barnes did not identify Moffett as the shooter, that is of no consequence, as the jury
obviously concluded that Robinson and Moffett acted in concert in committing a crime of
violence which resulted in Turner’s death. There is no merit to this issue.
4. Cumulative Error
¶40.
Finally, Moffett contends that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors requires
reversal. There is no merit to this issue, as we have found that the trial judge committed no
19
error.
¶41. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF CAPITAL MURDER AND SENTENCE AS A HABITUAL
OFFENDER OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HINDS COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS
AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
20
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.