212 So. 3d 836
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- Aaron Coleman was found dead after last being seen at William Jordan’s house on Feb 27, 2012; Jordan told police Coleman left shortly after visiting. Two eyewitnesses (JaMichael Smith and Bobby Baker) later implicated Jordan and Charles Henderson; both were charged as accessories after the fact.
- Smith fled town after the killing and was later extradited; he and Baker eventually gave statements implicating Jordan as the gunman and recounting events at Jordan’s home and the subsequent dumping/burning of Coleman’s body. No firearm or shell casing was recovered; forensic evidence was minimal.
- Jordan was indicted for second-degree (depraved-heart) murder and felon-in-possession of a firearm; Henderson and Baker were indicted as accessories after the fact. Jordan was tried separately after severance.
- The State introduced a YouTube rap video featuring Henderson (and briefly Jordan) that was posted after Smith and Baker had implicated the defendants; the video contains violent, anti-snitch lyrics and a staged “murder” scene. Smith and Baker testified the video made them feel threatened.
- Jordan objected at trial to admission of the video on authentication and relevance grounds (he later raised 404/403 arguments); the trial court admitted the video and denied requested alibi and accomplice-cautionary jury instructions. The jury convicted Jordan of depraved-heart murder and felon in possession; sentence affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jordan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of YouTube rap video | Video is relevant to show witness intimidation and consciousness of guilt; Smith and Baker felt threatened after it was posted | Video was not properly authenticated, not relevant, and its prejudicial effect (Rule 403/404(b)) outweighed probative value; trial judge erred | Video admissible: investigator’s foundation sufficient for authentication; relevance as evidence of intimidation/consciousness of guilt upheld; no plain error on 403/404 given objections made at trial (limited to authentication/relevance) |
| Investigator’s testimony describing video content | Testimony explained investigation and provided foundation for video admission | Testimony included improper lay-opinion and factual misstatements that prejudiced jury | Some overstatements by investigator were improper but harmless in context of strong corroborating evidence; no reversal warranted |
| Jury instructions — alibi | N/A (State opposed special alibi instruction) | Jordan requested alibi instruction claiming he was home with girlfriend and could not have committed the killing | Denied: court held defendant’s asserted location was at the scene (his house), so claim was a denial, not a true alibi; no abuse of discretion |
| Jury instructions — accomplice cautionary instruction | N/A | Requested cautionary instruction because witnesses had incentives/charges | Denied: Smith and Baker were charged as accessories after the fact (not accomplices); no accomplice instruction required; within trial court discretion |
| Sufficiency / weight of evidence | Testimony from Smith and Baker (corroborative) plus video and circumstantial facts support convictions | Testimony was unreliable, uncorroborated by physical evidence; convictions against overwhelming weight | Affirmed: evidence sufficient (reasonable juror could convict); verdict not against overwhelming weight given testimonial corroboration and probative circumstantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Mattox v. State, 137 So.2d 920 (Miss. 1962) (evidence of attempts to suppress witness testimony is admissible as consciousness of guilt)
- United States v. Begay, 673 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2011) (evidence of attempted intimidation admissible to show consciousness of guilt; no plain error where 403/404 objections not timely raised)
- Brooks v. State, 903 So.2d 691 (Miss. 2005) (limitations on admitting rap lyrics/creative works when nexus to charged offense is tenuous)
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (distinguishing sufficiency of the evidence from weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Rose v. State, 556 So.2d 728 (Miss. 1990) (improper lay-opinion testimony by investigator can be reversible where it tells jury to believe witnesses)