212 So. 3d 817
Miss.2016Background
- Victim Aaron Coleman was last seen at William Michael Jordan’s house; police later found Coleman’s body; no physical evidence tied Jordan to the killing.
- Two witnesses (JaMicha-el Smith and Bobby Baker) later testified that Jordan shot Coleman; Henderson was implicated as an accessory; Henderson and Jordan were initially co-defendants but severed.
- The State introduced a 5:35 YouTube rap video (featuring Henderson and a rapper “King Chris”); Jordan appears as an uncredited extra for ~30 seconds and is not heard rapping.
- The State authenticated the video via investigator Danny Knight, who offered opinion testimony (including incorrect assertions that Jordan “starred” and that the video reenacted the murder); the trial judge admitted the video without watching it and allowed the jury to take it to deliberations.
- Jordan objected at trial (relevance, authentication, Rule 404(b), and Rule 403) and moved for mistrial and new trial; convictions for second-degree murder and felon-in-possession were affirmed by a divided Court of Appeals and then affirmed en banc by an evenly split Supreme Court (affirmed without opinion); Justice King filed a separate written statement dissenting from the affirmance.
Issues
| Issue | Jordan's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of the YouTube video | Knight’s testimony was unreliable and lacked personal knowledge; State failed to show who created/posted the video or when | Video is what State claims; Knight’s testimony and witness recognition suffice to authenticate | Majority affirmed Court of Appeals; video ruled admissible by trial court (Justice King dissented, finding authentication inadequate) |
| Relevance of video to charged offenses | Video not sufficiently connected to Coleman killing or to threats against witnesses; Jordan’s minor role makes relevance tenuous | Video shows nexus to witnesses and consciousness of guilt; testimony tied participants to video | Majority affirmed; trial court found relevance (dissent: relevance weak and based on incorrect trial findings) |
| Rule 403 exclusion (prejudice vs. probative value) | Probative value is minimal; danger of unfair prejudice is high given vulgar violent content and Jordan’s peripheral role | Probative of consciousness of guilt and identity/context; not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Majority affirmed (no reversible error found); dissent would exclude under Rule 403 as prejudicial and central to State’s case |
| Preservation of objections for appeal (contemporaneousness) | Objections were preserved via repeated trial objections and post-trial motions invoking Rules 404(b) and 403 | Some arguments were not objected to at the exact moment; but general objections suffice | Court held Jordan preserved issues for appeal; trial court had opportunity to rule (preservation found) |
Key Cases Cited
- Debrow v. State, 972 So.2d 550 (Miss. 2007) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Brooks v. State, 903 So.2d 691 (Miss. 2005) (rap lyrics evidence subject to Rule 403 balancing; reversible where court failed to record analysis)
- Mattox v. State, 137 So.2d 920 (Miss. 1962) (threats to witnesses may show consciousness of guilt where direct and strong)
- McKee v. State, 791 So.2d 804 (Miss. 2001) (Rule 403 is the ultimate filter for admissible evidence)
- United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104 (4th Cir. 2014) (digital/social-media evidence authentication via provider records and account linkage)
- United States v. Hayden, 85 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 1996) (threat evidence admissible only if related to the offense and reliable)
- State v. Skinner, 95 A.3d 236 (N.J. 2014) (artistic expressions admissible only if strong nexus to charged offense and probative value outweighs prejudice)
- United States v. Vaulin, 132 F.3d 898 (3d Cir. 1997) (threats not connected to defendant have negligible probative value and high prejudice; fail Rule 403)