Paul Moore v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-KA-00063-COA
PAUL MOORE
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
08/19/2008
HON. W. SWAN YERGER
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
LESLIE S. LEE
BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER
RANDALL HARRIS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
ROBERT SHULER SMITH
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF INTIMIDATING A
WITNESS AND SENTENCED TO FIVE
YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
AFFIRMED - 10/26/2010
BEFORE KING, C.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Paul Moore was convicted of intimidating a witness, and he was sentenced by the
Circuit Court of Hinds County to five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections. Moore now appeals and asserts: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion
for a new trial after the State failed to comply with discovery rules regarding an immunity
agreement between the State and the victim, and (2) the trial court erred in denying his
motion for a new trial because the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the
evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
On February 1, 2008, Moore’s brother, Sharrod Moore, was arrested and charged with
the capital murder of Jackson Police Officer R.J. Washington. Sharrod was indicted and
arrested based on statements made by Harold Hackett. The next day, Hackett filed a
complaint against Moore. In his complaint, Hackett claimed Moore had made a threat to kill
him if he did not recant his statement to the police that Sharrod told him that he had killed
Officer Washington.
¶3.
At Moore’s trial, Tamara Cheatham testified she was with Hackett at the Van Winkle
Pool Hall (pool hall) when Moore walked in and asked to talk to Hackett. Moore and
Hackett then went outside. Cheatham stated that she overheard Moore tell Hackett that “he
needed to go down to the police department and tell them he had lied.” According to
Cheatham, Moore showed Hackett his gun and then allowed Hackett to walk away.
¶4.
Hackett’s cousin, Cory Brown, testified that he was also with Hackett at the pool hall
when Moore came in and asked to speak with Hackett outside. According to Brown, Hackett
came back inside the pool hall and told Brown to “come on and hurry up and come outside.”
Brown stated that he walked outside and heard Moore say to Hackett “I come here to kill you
for my brother.” Brown testified that Moore had a gun and pointed it at Hackett, and Moore
told Hackett that he “should kill him right then.” Brown and Hackett then got into Hackett’s
vehicle and left the pool hall.
2
¶5.
Jackson Police Officer Reggie Jones testified that he was contacted by Hackett on the
night the incident occurred at the pool hall. Officer Jones stated that Hackett told him that
Hackett had a confrontation with Moore and that Moore had threatened to kill Hackett for
talking about “some charges that had been brought up about Sharrod Moore.” Officer Jones
told Hackett to go down to the Jackson Police Department and file a complaint against
Moore.
¶6.
Hackett then went to the police department and filed a complaint against Moore.
Moore was then arrested and charged with intimidating a witness. A Hinds County grand
jury indicted Moore, and a trial was held in the Hinds County Circuit Court. At trial, Hackett
repeatedly stated on the witness stand that he did not want to testify. Hackett stated that he
feared for his life and the lives of his family members. Hackett testified that someone had
pulled a gun on him at the pool hall, but he testified it was not Moore.
DISCUSSION
¶7.
Moore contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial after
the State failed to disclose an immunity agreement with Hackett. Hackett’s immunity
agreement with the State gave him “absolute immunity from prosecution for any part he may
have played in the commission of any such crime investigated.” Moore contends that the
State had a duty to timely disclose the existence of the immunity agreement and failed to do
so. Moore asserts that the failure of the State to disclose the immunity agreement violated
Moore’s rights under the Confrontation Clause and the rules of discovery.
¶8.
It is well-settled law that “reversible error results when evidence of an immunity
agreement between the State and its key witness is removed from the jury's consideration.”
3
Slaughter v. State, 815 So. 2d 1122, 1129 (¶34) (Miss. 2002). However, any error assigned
to the lack of production of the immunity agreement between Hackett and the State is
harmless when considering the overwhelming evidence of Moore’s guilt. “An error is
harmless only when it is apparent on the face of the record that a fair[-]minded jury could
have arrived at no verdict other than that of guilty.” Jefferson v. State, 818 So. 2d 1099,
1112 (¶36) (Miss. 2002). Two eyewitnesses testified that Moore had intimidated and
threatened Hackett to withdraw his statement and affidavit given to the police that implicated
Moore’s brother, Sharrod, in the murder of Officer Washington. Accordingly, we find that
the jury was provided direct evidence regarding the intimidation of Hackett.
¶9.
Hackett’s immunity agreement was immaterial to Moore’s defense when considering
the overwhelming evidence of Moore’s guilt. Consequently, we find no prejudicial error was
committed, and this issue is without merit.
¶10.
Moore asserts that his guilty verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the
evidence because Hackett unwillingly testified before the court and because Hackett recanted
his original statement he had made to the police.
¶11.
In Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 844 (¶18) (Miss. 2005), the supreme court discussed
appellate review of the weight of the evidence supporting a jury's verdict:
When reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial based on an objection to
the weight of the evidence, we will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary
to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would
sanction an unconscionable injustice. . . . However, the evidence should be
weighed in the light most favorable to the verdict. A reversal on the grounds
that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, unlike
a reversal based on insufficient evidence, does not mean that acquittal was the
only proper verdict. Rather, . . . the court simply disagrees with the jury's
resolution of the conflicting testimony. This difference of opinion does not
4
signify acquittal any more than a disagreement among the jurors themselves.
Instead, the proper remedy is to grant a new trial.
¶12.
While it is true that Hackett gave conflicting testimony on the witness stand, it is clear
from the record and the two eyewitnesses, Cheatham and Brown, that Moore did in fact
intimidate Hackett to change his original statement that he had given to the police.
¶13.
On our review of the record, viewing the above evidence in a light most favorable to
the verdict, we find that the jury's verdict is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of
the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.
¶14. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF INTIMIDATING A WITNESS AND SENTENCE OF FIVE
YEARS 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., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR. MAXWELL, J., CONCURS IN
RESULT ONLY WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
5
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.
