316 So.3d 619
Miss.2021Background
- Aug. 15, 2015 drive-by shooting: D’Alandis Love killed; Perez Love, Kelsey Jennings, and Ken‑Norris Stigler seriously injured. Multiple 7.62 mm and a .40‑caliber casings recovered.
- Suspects developed: Armand (Armand) Jones, Sedrick Buchanan, Michael Holland, Jacarius (Keys) Keys, and James McClung; Keys gave a videotaped statement implicating Jones, Holland, Buchanan, and McClung.
- Keys’s statement was admitted at trial over defense objections under MRE 804(b)(3), (5), and (6) (forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing); Keys was later killed (~5 months after indictment).
- Jury convicted Jones of first‑degree murder and three counts of attempted murder; Buchanan acquitted of murder but convicted of three counts of aggravated assault.
- Court of Appeals affirmed admission under Rule 804(b)(6) and the convictions; Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari and: affirmed Jones’s convictions (finding forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing by imputation/conspiracy), reversed and rendered acquittal for Buchanan (insufficient evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Keys’s videotaped statement under forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing (MRE 804(b)(6)) | State: Keys was killed to prevent testimony; his murder was in furtherance of and reasonably foreseeable from the conspiracy, so Jones forfeited confrontation rights | Jones: He was incarcerated at Keys’s death and had no role in procuring Keys’s unavailability | Court: Sufficient evidence to impute Keys’s murder to Jones under conspiratorial/Pinkerton theory; Rule 804(b)(6) applied and statement admitted; Jones’s convictions affirmed |
| Whether Keys’s statement was inadmissible as self‑serving | State: Court admitted the statement; not a self‑serving statement offered by defendant | Jones: Relied on Simmons to exclude self‑serving declarations | Court: Simmons inapplicable because the State, not a defendant, offered Keys’s statement; exclusion rejected |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Buchanan’s aggravated‑assault convictions | State: Keys’s statement plus circumstantial evidence (presence, post‑shooting conduct, later association with a .40 pistol) supported aiding/abetting or principal liability | Buchanan: No eyewitness placed him as shooter or aider/abettor; Keys’s statement only places him in the back seat; ballistics and gun‑possession links were tenuous | Court: Evidence insufficient as a matter of law to prove Buchanan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions reversed and judgment of acquittal rendered |
| Admission of the .40‑caliber pistol recovered after Buchanan’s post‑arrest (evidentiary challenge) | State: Firearm and related testimony admissible as relevant circumstantial evidence | Buchanan: Gun belonged to a friend; no proof he possessed or that it was used in the crime; prejudicial | Court: Court of Appeals had upheld admission, but Supreme Court declined to decide the evidentiary claim because Buchanan’s insufficiency reversal was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay inadmissible absent unavailability and prior cross‑examination)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing requires defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent witness testimony)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (a witness absence obtained by wrongdoing forfeits confrontation right)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (overt acts of one coconspirator attributable to all for conspiracy liability)
- United States v. Cherry, 217 F.3d 811 (10th Cir.) (applies Pinkerton theory to impute forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing to coconspirators under a preponderance standard)
- United States v. Thompson, 286 F.3d 950 (7th Cir.) (uses conspiratorial‑responsibility approach for waiver‑by‑misconduct in organized conspiracies)