Pheliphae Coleman v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-KA-01357-COA
PHELIPHAE COLEMAN
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT 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:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
5/20/2003
HON. KENNETH L. THOMAS
BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
RAYMOND L. WONG
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
LAURENCE Y. MELLEN
CRIMINAL - FELONY
MURDER: SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, THE SENTENCE IMPOSED
IN THIS CAUSE SHALL RUN CONSECUTIVE
TO ANY AND ALL SENTENCES PREVIOUSLY
IMPOSED.
AFFIRMED - 06/29/2004
BEFORE BRIDGES, P.J., THOMAS AND IRVING, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Pheliphae Coleman was convicted in the Bolivar County Circuit Court of deliberate design murder
of his girlfriend, Natasha Hampton, and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. He appeals asserting two
errors: the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the circuit court erred in
denying his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
Coleman and Hampton lived together in an apartment in Cleveland, Mississippi. Jo Atkins lived
in the same apartment complex as did Coleman and Hampton. Atkins testified that on the evening of May
26, 2002, he was standing in a parking lot, across the street from the building in which Coleman and
Hampton resided, having a conversation with his niece. Atkins heard two gunshots followed by the sound
of a door shutting from the direction of the building. He told his niece that he was going to investigate, and
as he started across the street, he saw Coleman come from behind the building, running along the building's
side. Atkins asked Coleman what happened. Coleman told him that his girlfriend had been shot. Coleman
then turned and ran away, back in the direction from which he had come.
¶3.
Atkins entered the building by its front door. He again encountered Coleman in a central hallway.
The two men entered Coleman and Hampton's apartment together and found Hampton lying on the floor
with a gunshot wound to the head. Atkins asked Coleman who shot the woman, but Coleman did not
answer. Atkins testified that he saw Coleman pick up a gun shell casing from the floor, and Atkins asked
Coleman why he was removing evidence, but Coleman did not answer him and left the apartment. Atkins
also testified that he observed the imprint of a handgun in the back pocket of Coleman's pants.
¶4.
Maralyn Lloyd lived in the same apartment complex as Coleman and Hampton. She testified that
she had been outside her apartment taking out the trash, when Atkins told her a woman had been shot and
to call the police. She also testified that Coleman left the scene at the same time as the Bolivar County
Sheriff's Department arrived at the scene, and she also testified that she observed the outline of a handgun
in Coleman's back pants' pocket. Coleman was arrested the next day.
ANALYSIS
2
¶5.
As both assignments of error address the single issue of sufficiency of evidence, they will be
addressed together. A motion for a directed verdict, request for peremptory instruction, and motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence. McClain v. State, 625
So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993). "Since each requires consideration of the evidence before the court when
made, this Court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court."
McClain, 625 So. 2d at 778. This occurred when the lower court denied the motion for JNOV.
¶6.
In this case, no direct evidence linked Coleman to the murder, and Coleman contended that he
merely happened upon his girlfriend after she had been fatally shot by herself or some unknown person.
The test to be applied in considering the sufficiency of the proof based on circumstantial evidence is
"whether a rational fact finder might reasonably conclude that the evidence excludes every reasonable
hypothesis inconsistent with guilt of the crime charged." Shields v. State, 702 So. 2d 380, 382 (Miss.
1997) (citing Deloach v. State, 658 So. 2d 875, 876 (Miss. 1995)). "Circumstantial evidence need not
exclude every 'possible doubt,' but only every other 'reasonable' hypothesis of innocence." Neal v. State,
805 So. 2d 520 (¶20) (Miss. 2002) (quoting Tolbert v. State, 407 So. 2d 815, 820 (Miss. 1981)). Dr.
Steven Hayne performed an autopsy, and his testimony rebutted the contention of suicide. He testified that
Hampton died of a small caliber gunshot wound, and that the gun was at least a foot away from her head
when it was fired. Further, Hampton was right- handed, and the wound was to the left side of her head.
So, it was unlikely that she would attempt suicide by holding a handgun in her less dominant hand and firing
the gun from a foot away. The testimony of two witnesses that Coleman's pants pocket showed the outline
of a handgun on the evening of the shooting, his suspicious behavior in removing a shell casing, and his
refusal to answer the question of a bystander as to who shot Hampton, as well as his leaving the scene upon
the appearance of law enforcement, created an inference of Coleman's guilt. Additionally, Atkins'
3
testimony of how he initially encountered Coleman could be interpreted as showing Coleman attempted
to flee the scene even before the body was discovered. We find the contentions of suicide and/or innocent
happenstance were not reasonable in light of the evidence introduced at trial. There is no merit to this
assignment of error.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION
OF MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH THE SENTENCE TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY
TO ANY AND ALL SENTENCES PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS
OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO BOLIVAR COUNTY.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.
