Trevontae Johnson v. State of Mississippi
242 So. 3d 145
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- On April 8–9, 2013, Wayne Barrett reported a home invasion/armed robbery; a teenage accomplice (Keagan Latham) implicated Trevontae, Meekco, Isaac, and another in statements to police and identified an Ada Drive residence where stolen items were taken.
- While officers surveilled the Ada Drive house pending a search warrant, Sergeant Redfield observed two men leave in a blue Chevrolet Impala; Officer Osbun stopped the Impala (an investigatory stop) and found two laptops in the trunk. The occupants fled; officers later located Meekco and Isaac nearby.
- Police obtained a search warrant for the Ada Drive residence and recovered multiple stolen guns and a blue comforter; forensic testing matched a latent palm print on a gun to Isaac.
- Latham testified at trial identifying the defendants; Barrett identified the defendants at trial (though not in earlier lineups). Defendants were convicted of burglary, armed robbery, and kidnapping; Meekco was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- On appeal the defendants raised multiple issues: exclusion of an investigator’s report for impeachment, weight of the evidence, legality of the traffic stop and consent search, exclusion of a rebuttal witness under Rule 615, ineffective assistance of counsel, jury instruction on enhanced burglary, and alleged prosecutorial vouching.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in excluding Investigator O’Neal’s report for impeachment | Trevontae/Meekco: report was necessary to impeach Latham’s prior inconsistent statements | State: Latham’s statements to Officer Arendale could be explored on cross‑examination; O’Neal’s summary was inadmissible hearsay for impeachment of Latham | Exclusion not reversible: defense could cross‑examine Latham and O’Neal; admitting the investigator’s synopsis was not required |
| Whether verdict was against overwhelming weight of evidence | Trevontae: insufficient physical evidence tying him to crime; identifications unreliable | State: witness testimony (accomplice and victim) provided corroboration sufficient for jury | No new trial; jury credibility choices upheld; corroboration sufficient |
| Legality of traffic stop and suppression of evidence | Meekco/Isaac: stop lacked reasonable suspicion; consent to search was tainted by illegal stop | State: officers had reasonable suspicion based on surveillance, descriptions, photos circulated to officers; consent/inevitable‑discovery alternative | Stop found reasonable under totality (officer observations + transmitted intel); even if error, admission was harmless given overwhelming independent evidence |
| Validity of consent to search | Meekco/Isaac: consent given after illegal detention and therefore tainted | State: consent was voluntary; alternatively, evidence at house and fingerprint match would have established guilt | Court found consent/stop issues harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because untainted evidence was overwhelming |
| Exclusion of rebuttal witness (Rule 615) | Meekco/Isaac: Alex Johnson should have testified to impeach Latham on gang membership; exclusion violated right to present a defense | State: Alex violated sequestration; trial court discretion to exclude | Court found exclusion erroneous as to limited gang‑membership impeachment but harmless — no prejudice to outcome |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Meekco: multiple trial counsel failures (e.g., not objecting to fingerprint reports, identifications, closing argument, severance) | State: record not adequate on direct appeal to resolve ineffectiveness | Court declined to decide on direct appeal; claim dismissed without prejudice (may pursue PCR) |
| Jury instruction on enhanced burglary (“likely to terrorize”) | Isaac: jury not properly instructed on enhanced element | State: phrase self‑explanatory; instructions read together | No reversible error; instructions adequate |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (vouching for witness) | Isaac: prosecutor vouched for Latham; objection waived but plain error argued | State: prosecutor’s remarks responsive to defense impeachment of Latham | No reversible error; remarks were fair response and not plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 54 So. 3d 212 (Miss. 2011) (standard of review for admission/exclusion of evidence)
- Flowers v. State, 601 So. 2d 828 (Miss. 1992) (standard for new‑trial/reweighing evidence motion)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers are seized by a vehicle stop and may challenge its legality)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigatory‑stop standard requiring reasonable suspicion)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness standard for consent searches)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (consent given after illegal detention may be tainted)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless constitutional error standard)
- Fairchild v. State, 459 So. 2d 793 (Miss. 1984) (conviction on accomplice testimony must be treated with caution; require corroboration)
- Doby v. State, 532 So. 2d 584 (Miss. 1988) (conviction may rest on single witness testimony)