Immanuel Manning v. State of Mississippi, 269 So. 3d 216

On March 7, 2014, Christopher Houston was shot and killed; his girlfriend Natalla Carter heard his dying statement accusing "Papoose," a nickname for Immanuel Manning.
Officers responded, took witness statements (including a description of a gray Pontiac and a fleeing male), and used a BOLO; Lt. Brett Watson later used T‑Mobile cell‑data coordinates placed into Google Maps to help locate and arrest Manning.
Manning was arrested, released on bond, and Carter reported two post‑release encounters she perceived as threatening (kissing gestures and an unclear remark including the words "do something").
Manning was indicted for first‑degree murder and witness intimidation (possession‑of‑stolen‑property later retired). Trial resulted in convictions for murder and witness intimidation; Manning appealed.
On appeal, Manning raised (1) that Watson’s testimony about cell‑data was inadmissible lay/expert testimony, (2) insufficiency of evidence on witness intimidation, and (3) that jury instruction S‑3(A) constructively amended the indictment. The Court of Appeals addressed the first three issues and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Manning)	Held
Admissibility of Lt. Watson’s testimony about cell‑phone coordinates	Testimony described records and mapping; was nontechnical lay testimony based on first‑hand handling of downloaded coordinates	Watson’s mapping and directional testimony was technical and required expert testimony (Collins) and leading questions elicited improper answers	Waived by failure to object; substantively, testimony was lay, nontechnical mapping of T‑Mobile coordinates into Google Maps and not error
Sufficiency of evidence for witness intimidation	Carter’s testimony about two post‑release encounters (gestures and threatening words) supported conviction; jury can assess credibility	Testimony about the alleged threat was vague and insufficient to prove intimidation beyond a reasonable doubt	Evidence sufficient; Carter’s uncorroborated testimony was enough and jury found it credible
Constructive amendment by Instruction S‑3(A)	Instruction tracked indictment’s elements sufficiently and omission of explicit "overt act" did not add or alter elements	Instruction omitted overt‑act language present in the indictment, altering elements and requiring reversal	Waived by failure to object; substantively, omission did not change elements or broaden grounds for conviction

Collins v. State, 172 So. 3d 724 (Miss. 2015) (expert testimony required when testimony purports to pinpoint a phone user’s location from historical cellular data)
Walls v. State, 928 So. 2d 922 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (two‑part test for admissibility of lay opinion: assists trier of fact and is based on firsthand knowledge)
Cousar v. State, 855 So. 2d 993 (Miss. 2003) (a single witness’s uncorroborated testimony can support a conviction)
Bell v. State, 725 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 1998) (reversal required when a defendant is convicted of an element not contained in the indictment; not all variances are constructive amendments)
Ross v. State, 16 So. 3d 47 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (failure to object at trial waives appellate challenge to testimony)