Akeem Rasheed v. State of Mississippi
237 So. 3d 822
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 29, 2014, Akeem Rasheed forced entry into Renee Childs’s apartment, a confrontation ensued, and Michael Randle was stabbed in the back; Childs and Randle identified Rasheed and 911 calls corroborated their accounts.
- Police arrested Rasheed a few blocks away carrying a plastic bag containing a red shirt and a fillet knife; Rasheed initially denied knowing Childs and later gave recorded statements with inconsistent admissions.
- A jury convicted Rasheed of aggravated assault and burglary of a dwelling; the trial court later found him a habitual offender and imposed two concurrent life sentences without parole or probation.
- On appeal, appointed counsel challenged the court’s refusal to give a self-defense instruction, the aggravated-assault instruction, alleged prosecutorial misconduct (and counsel’s failure to object), and raised ineffective-assistance claims.
- Rasheed filed pro se supplemental claims (conspiracy/technical defects, confrontation/911 recordings, indictment amendment, double jeopardy, evidentiary/chain-of-custody, insufficiency of evidence); most were either procedurally barred or rejected on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rasheed) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Denial of self-defense jury instruction | Trial court should have instructed on self-defense | Rasheed testified he did not stab Randle; no evidentiary foundation for self-defense instruction | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in refusing instruction because self-defense lacked evidentiary support |
| 2) Aggravated-assault instruction omission | Jury should have been instructed that State must disprove self-defense | No proper claim of self-defense was raised; additional element unnecessary | Court affirmed: instruction correct absent a supported self-defense claim |
| 3) Prosecutorial misconduct and counsel’s failure to object | Prosecutors’ voir dire and argument were prejudicial; trial judge should have acted sua sponte; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Many comments were proper or innocuous; no contemporaneous objections; not so inflammatory to require sua sponte action; trial strategy explains lack of objections | Court affirmed: claims procedurally barred or meritless; Strickland standard not met |
| 4) Pro se miscellaneous claims (Confrontation/indictment amendment/habitual-offender status/double jeopardy/chain of custody/insufficiency) | Various (e.g., 911 calls violated confrontation, indictment amendment improper, knife inadmissible, convictions legally infirm) | Many claims waived for failure to raise at trial; evidence, authentication, and pen-packs supported convictions and habitual-offender finding; offenses have different elements; evidence sufficient | Court affirmed: most claims procedurally barred; remaining claims lack merit; convictions and sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay absent opportunity to cross-examine)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (911 calls describing ongoing emergency are non‑testimonial and typically do not trigger Confrontation Clause)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and waiver requirements for custodial interrogation)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)