IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2019-KA-00814-SCT
DARRON LASHAUN THAMES
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/12/2019 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COLLINS TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: CHRISTOPHER MORGAN POSEY STEVEN SIMEON KILGORE JAMES EDWIN SMITH, III COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: NEWTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES ERIN ELIZABETH BRIGGS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS ALLISON K. HARTMAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: STEVEN SIMEON KILGORE NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 02/04/2021 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE KITCHENS, P.J., BEAM AND ISHEES, JJ.
BEAM, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Darron Lashaun Thames was indicted by a Newton County grand jury for conspiracy
to commit murder and accessory after the fact to murder. Thames was acquitted by a jury of
the conspiracy charge, but he was found guilty of accessory after the fact to murder under
Mississippi Code Section 97-1-5 (Rev. 2014). Thames appeals from his conviction claiming that he was unfairly prejudiced by the State’s use of impeachment evidence and transcript
testimony of a prosecution witness who had previously testified at a guilty-plea proceeding
and at another trial. Thames further claims that his conviction is not supported by sufficient
evidence and that the jury’s guilty verdict is not supported by overwhelming weight of
evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Thames’s conviction.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Jamarcus Townsend was shot shortly before midnight on March 17, 2017, in front of
Derrick Grass’s house at 113 Tillman Street in Newton, Mississippi. By the time police
arrived to the scene, Townsend was dead.
¶3. Officers quickly developed Lyndale Jones, Richard Lofton, Jordan Myers, and Robbie
Chapman as suspects. Lofton, Myers, and Chapman were members of the Black Disciples
gang, while Jones was an aspiring member. Townsend was a member of a rival gang, the
Vice Lords. Leading up to the shooting, there had been several altercations between the two
gangs in and around the Newton area.
¶4. Months before Townsend’s killing, Townsend, Grass, and other members of the Vice
Lords purportedly had been riding around town displaying weapons and shooting at various
members of the Black Disciples. In one instance, Townsend purportedly shot and wounded
Robert Bender, an elder member of the Black Disciples. In another, Townsend purportedly
shot into a vehicle occupied by Thames, also an elder member of the Black Disciples.
Thames was in his late twenties at the time, and he was referred to as “Uncle D.” Riding in
2 the vehicle with Thames was Thames’s girlfriend, Ashton Thompson and their baby
daughter. Ashton is Bender’s daughter.
¶5. Witnesses at the scene of Townsend’s killing identified Jones’s vehicle as the one
from which the shots were fired. Jones was arrested a couple of hours later. Jones told
authorities that Lofton, Myers, and Chapman were with him in the vehicle at the time of the
shooting. Chapman turned himself in to local authorities three days later. Local authorities
were unable to find Lofton and Myers and they eventually asked the U.S. Marshals Service
for assistance. The U.S. marshals found Lofton and Myers approximately twelve days later
“hiding out” in Meridian, Mississippi.
¶6. From their investigation, authorities learned that before Townsend’s killing, a number
of meetings had taken place among the Black Disciples. On March 17, Jones, Lofton, Myers,
and Chapman traveled in Jones’s vehicle from Thames’s cousin’s place to a Chevron gas
station in Newton. There, the four were met by Thames, who was riding in another vehicle
driven by Ashton.
¶7. Video surveillance from the gas station presented at trial shows the vehicle occupied
by Thames arrive at the Chevron around 11:00 p.m.1 Moments later, Jones’s vehicle pulled
up. Jones got out of his vehicle and walked over to the vehicle occupied by Thames and
purportedly received $5 for gas from someone in the vehicle. After fueling up, Jones’s
1 According to Investigator Bruce McGraw with the Newton Police Department, the time depicted on the video footage was an hour off, possibly due to the video clock’s not having been changed to daylight saving time.
3 vehicle left the gas station, and the vehicle occupied by Thames left a couple of minutes
afterwards.
¶8. Shortly before midnight, gun shots rang out in front of 113 Tillman Street. Ten
minutes later, Jones’s vehicle arrived at Ashton’s mobile home, where Thames and others
were sitting outside drinking beer.
¶9. According to Thames in one of his statements to authorities, he was told by the four
that Jones’s vehicle had been shot at and that they had returned fire. Thames said he did not
know at the time if anyone was killed. The guns were removed from Jones’s vehicle and put
somewhere on Ashton’s property.
¶10. Thames said that he was concerned about retaliation and that he told Jones to get his
vehicle away from the property. Thames said that he and Ashton followed Jones to Jones’s
“papaw’s” place, where Jones parked the vehicle. Thames then told Jones not to come back
to Ashton’s place. Lofton, Myers, and Chapman remained at Ashton’s during this time.
¶11. When Thames and Ashton arrived back to her place, they saw on Facebook that
Townsend had died. Afterwards, the group went to sleep. The next day, Ashton and Jessica
Powers drove Lofton, Myers, and Chapman to Meridian.
¶12. Following Jones’s arrest on March 18, a search warrant was issued for Ashton’s
address. Jones told authorities that a 12-gauge shotgun, a 20-gauge shotgun, an AK47 rifle,
and a 9mm handgun were used in the shooting and that they would find the weapons on
Ashton’s property. Approximately twelve hours after the shooting, officers executed the
search warrant and found a Remington Model 870 shotgun and an old shirt wrapped with
4 more than one-hundred rounds of ammunition on Ashton’s property. Although authorities
determined that a shotgun was used in the shooting, the gun found on Ashton’s property was
never established as the weapon that killed Townsend.
¶13. Thames was arrested on April 21, 2017. He was interviewed by local authorities and
subsequently by agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(ATF). In both interviews, Thames denied any involvement in Townsend’s shooting. When
asked by authorities why the four went to an area where Vice Lord members resided, Thames
said it was because of an argument that had occurred over the phone while they were at
Thames’s cousin’s place. Thames said he warned the four not to go to Tillman Street.
¶14. In August 2018, Lofton pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder. As part of
his plea agreement, Lofton agreed to testify against others involved in the case.
¶15. Ashton was charged with accessory after the fact to murder. At her trial in August
2018, Lofton testified that he was a member of the Black Disciples. He said there had been
an ongoing conflict between the Black Disciples and the Vice Lords in Newton resulting in
shootings in and around Newton. According to Lofton, Townsend had been involved in
these shootings. Eventually, it was decided by the Black Disciples that Townsend “has to
go.” Lofton said Thames was a part of this decision.
¶16. According to Lofton’s testimony at Ashton’s trial, on the evening of March 17,
Lofton, Thames, and other Black Disciple members were hanging out at “Big Dave’s” house.
There, it was decided that Lofton, Myers, and Chapman would “go looking for” Townsend.
5 Jones drove up in his vehicle soon after. Lofton, Myers, and Chapman got into Jones’s
vehicle.
¶17. Lofton said that he, Chapman, and Jones already had guns and that Thames had
provided Myers with a 9 mm pistol so that all four of them would have guns. The four drove
from Big Dave’s house to the Chevron to meet Thames, who gave Jones some gas money.
¶18. After leaving the Chevron, the four drove to Tillman Street, where they knew
Townsend would be located. Lofton described Tillman as a dead-end street about eighty to
ninety yards long. Grass’s house was close to the end of the street. The four initially drove
past Grass’s house and turned around at the end of the street.
¶19. According to Lofton, “That’s when my window rolled down and somebody came out
shooting at us[,]” and “[w]e shot back.” Afterwards, the four drove to Ashton’s place. When
they arrived, Thames came outside and asked them what happened. They told Thames that
“[s]omebody shot at us and we shot back.” The next day, Ashton and Powers drove Lofton,
Myers, and Chapman to Meridian where they stayed with other members of the Black
Disciples.
¶20. At Thames’s trial, Lofton was called by the State as a witness. Lofton admitted that
he had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder, stating, “I signed a plea for
conspiracy, but from what I know, I’m getting my charge back.” Lofton then denied that he
was a member of the Black Disciples and claimed that he had never heard of the Black
Disciples. The State then sought permission from the trial judge to treat Lofton as a hostile
witness under Rule 611(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence.
6 ¶21. Thames’s counsel objected somewhat, stating: “Your Honor, he’s been asked two
questions other than his name and his rank, and he’s - -” The trial judge interjected, stating
for the record as follows: “The last time [Lofton] was under oath in my courtroom in front
of a jury he boasted with great pride that he was a member of the Black Gangster Disciples.
He has now either perjured himself the first time [sic] or perjured himself this time. I think
the threshold has been passed.”
¶22. The State questioned Lofton extensively with regard to his participation in
Townsend’s shooting along with his testimony at Ashton’s trial and his guilty-plea testimony.
The State also questioned Lofton with regard to written statements he had provided to
investigators after his arrest.
¶23. During the State’s examination, Lofton admitted his involvement in the shooting,
while maintaining that Townsend and others shot at them first as they drove by Grass’s house
on Tillman Street. Lofton also affirmed that before Townsend’s killing, he, Thames, and
Bender had been shot at by Townsend and others. While Lofton acknowledged that he had
previously testified that the prior shootings were gang related, he disavowed his prior
testimony by saying that he had no knowledge whether any of the individuals involved in
those shootings were members of a gang.
¶24. Lofton admitted that in his testimony at Ashton’s trial, he had said that a meeting
among the Black Disciples had occurred at which it was decided that Townsend “has to go.”
But he admitted that before anything was done, they had to get Thames’s permission since
Thames was in charge of security for the gang. Lofton also admitted that he had testified at
7 his guilty-plea proceeding that Thames had given him, Chapman, Jones, and Myers the
“green light to go shoot up Grass’s house.” And the next morning, after everyone had
learned that Townsend was dead, Thames instructed Ashton to take him, Myers, and
Chapman to Meridian.
¶25. But Lofton later Thames denied that was the case. Lofton said there was no meeting
at Big Dave’s house before Townsend’s killing on March 17. Lofton said that he and others
were at Big Dave’s “just chilling,” and he was not sure who all was there because it was
dark. Lofton denied that Thames gave them the green light to go shoot Townsend or to shoot
up Grass’s house. Lofton admitted that he, Myers, Chapman, and Jones went to the Chevron
after leaving Big Dave’s. But he later claimed that it was not prearranged for Thames to
meet them there, and he did not know if Thames was at the gas station when they stopped to
get gas.
¶26. Lofton acknowledged that after the shooting on Tillman Street, the four of them went
directly to Ashton’s place. But he later said that Thames was not there and that he and the
others that were there did not talk about the shooting. Lofton said that he, Myers, and
Chapman were driven to Meridian the next morning by Ashton and Powers. He denied that
they were taken to a Black Disciples member’s house.
¶27. On cross-examination, Thames’s counsel questioned Lofton about his changing his
story. Defense counsel asked Lofton about his initial statement to authorities, in which
Lofton denied being involved in Townsend’s shooting, and about Lofton’s written statement
dated April 9, 2017, in which Lofton stated they “got the green light from Uncle Dee to kill
8 Jamarcus.” Lofton said that he believed the April 9 statement would help his current
circumstances at the time.
¶28. Defense counsel then asked Lofton about his own indictment for first-degree murder
and his subsequent guilty plea to conspiracy to commit murder. Lofton said he understood
that the former carries a life sentence, but that he would be eligible for parole under the latter.
According to Lofton, he would be eligible for parole in 2022. Lofton then acknowledged
that as part of his plea agreement, he was required to testify in both Ashton’s and Thames’s
respective trials.
¶29. Defense counsel next asked Lofton about a letter Lofton wrote to Ashton’s attorney
soon after he testified at her trial. Over the State’s objection, the trial judge allowed defense
counsel to submit the letter into evidence. Lofton read the letter to the jury in which Lofton
claimed that he “lied about Ashton and everybody else knowing about what had happened.”
Lofton said in the letter that he wanted to set the record straight because “I thought that being
free was more important than another’s lives [sic], but I was wrong and it has only made me
feel worse and I can’t handle it emotionally.”
¶30. On redirect, the State submitted into evidence Lofton’s written statement of April
9,2017 and the written statement Lofton made to investigators on April 21, 2017. The State
also submitted into evidence the transcripts of Lofton’s guilty-plea proceeding and Lofton’s
testimony at Ashton’s trial.
9 ¶31. The jury found Thames not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and guilty of
accessory after the fact to murder. This appeal followed.2
DISCUSSION
I. Whether Thames was unfairly prejudiced by the use of impeachment evidence and Lofton’s previous testimonies.
¶32. Thames argues that the State’s use of Lofton’s unsworn impeachment hearsay
evidence was not properly limited by the trial court under Rule 105 of Mississippi Rules of
Evidence in the jury’s deliberation; that the evidence was misused by the trial court in
denying a directed verdict and motion for a new trial; and that the evidence was
mischaracterized by the State as substantive evidence. Thames further contends that he was
unfairly prejudiced by the introduction of extrinsic evidence consisting of Lofton’s written
statements to authorities, along with the transcripts of his guilty-plea proceeding and
testimony from Thompson’s trial. Thames also claims that his trial counsel was
constitutionally ineffective for not objecting to the improper use of Lofton’s impeachment
evidence, for not requesting a limiting instruction under Rule 105 of the Mississippi Rules
of Evidence, and for not requesting a balancing analysis under Rule 403 of the Mississippi
Rules of Evidence.
2 Initially, the Office of Indigent Appeals filed a Lindsey brief, certifying that it found no arguable issues to appeal. See Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005). Thames did not file a pro se brief. This Court requested supplemental briefing from both the Office of Indigent Appeals and the State to address the admissibility of certain evidence, along with the sufficiency and/or the weight of the evidence in support of Thames’s conviction and/or the jury’s guilty verdict for accessory after the fact.
10 ¶33. The State argues that Lofton’s prior unsworn statements were properly used as
impeachment evidence and that Lofton’s prior statements made under oath at Lofton’s guilty-
plea proceeding and at Ashton’s trial were properly admitted as substantive evidence. The
State contends that Thames waived his right to a Rule 105 limiting instruction and a Rule 403
balancing test by not requesting either.
¶34. This Court’s reviews a trial court’s decision to allow or exclude evidence under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Cole v. State, 126 So. 3d 880, 883 (Miss. 2013). If error is
found, “this Court will not reverse unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a
party.” Hargett v. State, 62 So. 3d 950, 953 (Miss. 2011) (internal quotation mark omitted)
(quoting Ladnier v. State, 878 So. 2d 926, 933 (Miss. 2004)).
¶35. Because Thames did not object at trial to the State’s use of Lofton’s prior inconsistent
statements (sworn or unsworn) or request a Rule 105 limiting instruction or a Rule 403
balancing test, the issue is barred from review absent plain error. Roby v. State, 183 So. 3d
857, 870-71 (Miss. 2016). “To preserve an issue for appeal, a contemporaneous objection
must be made.” Walker v. State, 913 So. 2d 198, 238 (Miss. 2005) (citing Ratliff v. State,
313 So. 2d 386 (Miss. 1975)); see also Pitchford v. State, 45 So. 3d 216, 238-39 (Miss.
2010) (failure to raise a Rule 403 objection at trial bars the issue from review); Sipp v. State,
936 So. 2d 326, 331 (Miss. 2006) (“it is the responsibility of defense counsel to ask for [a
limiting] instruction” (citing Brown v. State, 890 So. 2d 901, 913 (Miss. 2004))). The reason
for the rule is “to enable the trial court to correct an error with proper instructions to the jury
whenever possible.” Walker, 913 So. 2d at 238 (citing Gray v. State, 487 So. 2d 1304, 1312
11 (Miss. 1986)). “For the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been an error that
resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Johnson v. State, 155 So. 3d 733, 738 (Miss.
2014) (quoting Burdette v. State, 110 So. 3d 296, 303 (Miss. 2013)).
¶36. The State requested and was granted permission to treat Lofton as a hostile witness
under Rule 611(c), which allows leading question on direct examination “when a party calls
a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.” This Court
has provided a test “to determine how closely the witness must be identified with the adverse
party in order to be considered hostile[.]” McFarland v. State, 707 So. 2d 166, 175 (Miss.
1997) (citing Harris v. Buxton T.V., Inc., 460 So. 2d 828, 833 (Miss. 1984)). As reiterated
in McFarland, the test provides as follows:
(1) If the witness’ acts or omissions are the predicate for a party’s claim or defense, . . . , then that witness is ordinarily sufficiently identified with an adverse party and may be called as an adverse witness and interrogated by leading questions.
(2) If the conduct of the witness plays such an integral part in the transaction or occurrence which is the subject of the action and which gives rise to . . . potential liability, . . . , then again the witness is said to be sufficiently identified with the adverse party so that the witness may be called as an adverse witnessed and cross examined.
Id. (quoting Harris, 460 So. 2d at 833).3
¶37. Before the State had requested permission from the trial judge to treat Lofton as a
hostile witness, Lofton, in response to the State’s questions, attested that his guilty plea to
3 The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 611 states, “the Advisory Committee is cognizant of the Harris decision but considers the interpretation and application of the phrase ‘identified with the adverse party’ to be broader than that expressed in Harris.”
12 conspiracy to commit murder arose out of the same facts and circumstances as those
predicating the case against Thames. Lofton then denied any affiliation with or knowledge
of the Black Disciples gang, a probative circumstance in the State’s case against Thames.
As the trial judge noted, Lofton had previously admitted under oath being a member of the
gang and, now at Thames’s trial, now denied it. Accordingly, the trial court found that the
State had demonstrated the threshold requirements for Rule 611. We find no plain error in
the trial court’s ruling.
¶38. The State then elicited testimony from Lofton about the events surrounding
Townsend’s shooting. As mentioned, Lofton admitted his participation in the shooting and
to what had occurred before and after the shooting. But he denied that this was a gang
related shooting and that Thames had any involvement. The State questioned Lofton
throughout about his prior testimonies and certain written statements he had made to
¶39. For the most part, Lofton did not deny making any prior statement which the State
questioned him about. He claimed throughout that he had either lied at the time he made the
statement, that his story had changed, or that he did not remember. As mentioned, the
transcripts containing Lofton’s prior sworn testimonies, along with Lofton’s prior unsworn
written statements made to investigators were submitted into evidence during the State’s
redirect examination of Lofton.
13 ¶40. We find no plain error here. Nor do we find any attorney error amounting to
constitutional ineffectiveness4 for failure to object to this evidence, request a Rule 403
balancing test, or a limiting instruction from the trial court.
¶41. At the outset, under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, a
witness’s prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay and may be used as substantive evidence
to prove the truth of the matter asserted if the statement was given under oath and if the
declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement. MRE
801(d)(1)(A); see Gleeton v. State, 716 So. 2d 1083, 1090 (Miss. 1998) (finding no error in
trial court’s allowing witness’s plea-hearing transcript into evidence at defendant’s criminal
trial under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) when witness was called by the state, gave contradictory
testimony, and was subject to cross-examination), superseded on other grounds as stated in
Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31, 35 (Miss. 2003); see also United
States v. Tinghui Xie, 942 F.3d 228, 238 n.33 (5th Cir. 2019) (finding no Confrontation
Clause violation in using witness’s prior grand jury testimony as substantive evidence against
defendant when defendant had opportunity at trial to cross-examine witness about her prior
sworn testimony).
¶42. Throughout the State’s examination of Lofton, Lofton was given the opportunity to
admit, deny, or explain his prior sworn statements. And he continuously contradicted in fact
what he had previously testified to under oath. “[A] prior statement is inconsistent if under
4 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) (conduct that “so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result”).
14 any rational theory its introduction might lead to a conclusion different from the witness’s
testimony.” Pustay v. State, 221 So. 3d 320, 332 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (alteration in
original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Everett v. State, 835 So. 2d 118, 122
(Miss. Ct. App. 2003)).
¶43. The inconsistency requirement of Rule 801(d)(1)(A) was met, as were the
foundational requirements under Rule 613 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, so as to
allow for proper cross-examination by the defense. Given the admissibility of this evidence,
we see no deficiency on defense counsel’s part by not objecting to it.
¶44. As for Lofton’s prior unsworn statements, we think defense counsel certainly could
have attempted to keep them out of the trial and may have been successful in doing so. But
the decision not to do so clearly falls under trial strategy in this instance.
¶45. First, unlike prior sworn inconsistent statements, prior unsworn inconsistent
statements, as a rule, are allowed to be used at trial only as impeachment evidence, not as
substantive evidence. Carothers v. State, 152 So. 3d 277, 282 (Miss. 2014) (“Generally,
because such statements are fraught with hearsay problems, they may be introduced at trial
only for impeachment purposes, not as substantive evidence.”). Because Lofton often did
not deny having made most of his prior unsworn statements, claiming at times that he had
lied when he made the statement, there arguably was no use for that particular statement as
impeachment evidence.
¶46. That said, however, Lofton’s prior sworn and unsworn statements fairly coincide with
one another. And given the admissibility of Lofton’s prior sworn inconsistent statements,
15 any success in keeping Lofton’s prior unsworn inconsistent statements out of the trial through
a Rule 403 balancing test or otherwise would have been minimal at most.
¶47. Further, defense counsel likely realized that with Lofton being called as a state’s
witness for the State, detrimental substantive evidence was going to presented against
Thames one way or another. Thus, we cannot second guess the defense’s trial strategy in this
case.
¶48. As mentioned, during cross-examination of Lofton, defense counsel brought out the
fact that Lofton had initially told investigators that he was not involved in Townsend’s
shooting. Defense counsel then amplified the fact that Lofton initially was charged with
murder but later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder in exchange for providing
testimony against others. Also, over the State’s objection, defense counsel successfully
introduced into evidence for the jury’s consideration a letter form Lofton to Ashton’s legal
counsel repudiating his testimony at Ashton’s trial. The trial court allowed this otherwise
inadmissible letter into evidence, finding that it gave “a complete picture of the situation.”
In turn, the State submitted Lofton’s sworn and unsworn prior inconsistent statements into
evidence.
¶49. Because these unsworn statements were submitted into evidence without limitation,
both parties were free to reference this evidence during their respective closing arguments.
See Gunn v. State, 174 So. 3d 848, 862 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (because the defendant agreed
to the introduction of out-of-court statements into evidence without limitation, the State was
“free to refer to them as substantive evidence” in closing argument).
16 ¶50. For these reasons, we find that Thames has failed to demonstrate plain error on the
part of the trial court with regard to the admissibility of Lofton’s prior sworn statements or
his unsworn statements. And we find that Thames has failed to demonstrate constitutional
ineffectiveness on the part of defense counsel for not requesting a Rule 105 limiting
instruction or a Rule 403 balancing test with regard to Lofton’s prior unsworn statements.
II. Whether the trial court erred by denying Thames’s request for a peremptory instruction directing the jury to find him not guilty of accessory after the fact to murder, or whether the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence.
¶51. Thames argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove that he acted as
an accessory after the fact to murder. Thames contends that the State never proved that he
had knowledge of a completed crime of murder as statutorily defined. Thames acknowledges
that he admitted to investigators that he knew a shooting had occurred after Lofton and the
others informed him afterwards that Lofton’s version was that they had only returned fire,
so the element of premeditation was lacking. Thames contends that he only had knowledge
of them unloading their weapons from the vehicle at Ashton’s trailer. And Thames maintains
that he instructed that the vehicle used in the shooting be removed from Ashton’s out of fear
of retaliation from the Vice Lords. Thames further contends that there was no proof that any
of the shooters had been convicted of murder. And just because Lofton and the others had
arguably participated in a conspiracy to commit murder does not prove that a murder
occurred.
17 ¶52. Alternatively, Thames contends that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the
overwhelming weight of the evidence and that the trial court erred by denying Thames’s
motion for a new trial.
¶53. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views the evidence in a
light most favorable to the State to determine if “any rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Barton v. State, 303 So. 3d
698, 701 (Miss. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Thomas v. State, 277 So.
3d 532, 535 (Miss. 2019)). All favorable inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence go
to the benefit of the State. Id. (citing Thomas, 277 So. 3d at 535).
¶54. When reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, this Court views the
evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict. Cyrus v. State, 248 So. 3d 760, 762 (Miss.
2018). This Court will not disturb a jury verdict on a weight-of-the-evidence challenge,
unless we find that the verdict “is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence
that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Potts v. State, 233 So.
3d 782, 791 (Miss. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Clemons v. State, 199
So. 3d 670 (Miss. 2016)).
¶55. Accessory after the fact contains the following elements:
(1) a completed felony has been committed; (2) the accused concealed, received, relieved, aided or assisted a felon, knowing that such person had committed a felony; and (3) such aid or assistance was rendered with the intent to enable the felon to escape or avoid arrest, trial, conviction or punishment after the commission of such felony.
Mangum v. State, 762 So. 2d 337, 342-43 (Miss. 2000) (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 97-1-5).
18 To render one liable as an accessory after the fact he must have had actual knowledge, at the time he relieved or assisted the principal, that the latter had committed a felony, or was an accessory before the fact to a felony; and such knowledge must be personal as distinguished from constructive.
Matula v. State, 220 So. 2d 833, 834 (Miss. 1969) (quoting 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 96
(1961)).
¶56. Thames’s indictment charged him with knowingly assisting Lofton, Myers, Chapman,
and Jones to avoid arrest and to conceal evidence after the commission of a felony, at a time
when Thames knew that the four committed the crime of murder, “by cleaning up the vehicle
used in the commission of the murder and concealing and disposing of physical evidence, all
with the intent to enable [the four] to avoid arrest and prosecution for the murder of Jamarkus
Townsend.”
¶57. The State was not required to prove that any one of the shooters had been convicted
of murder. See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-1-5(3) (Rev. 2014) (“In the prosecution of an offense
under this section, it shall not be necessary to aver in the indictment or to prove on the trial
that the principal has been convicted or tried.”). Rather, the State had to prove that Lofton,
Myers, Chapman and Jones feloniously killed Townsend, and that Thames, with knowledge
thereof, committed specific acts afterwards with intent to enable any one of the four shooters
“to escape or to avoid arrest, trial, conviction or punishment . . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-1-
5(1).
¶58. “The killing of a human being without the authority of law” constitutes murder in
Mississippi “[w]hen done with deliberate design to effect the death of a person killed[;]” or,
“[w]hen done in the commission of an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a
19 depraved heart, regardless of human life, although without premeditated design to effect the
death of any particular individual[;]” or, “when done without design to effect death by any
person engaged in the commission of any felony other than [a capital felony.]” Miss. Code
Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(a), (b), (c) (Supp. 2019).
¶59. The State presented sufficient, substantive evidence that Townsend’s killing resulted
from either a planned execution or an eminently dangerous depraved-heart act, or from a
felonious drive-by shooting. Thames’s jury was presented evidence that Thames gave the
four shooters the “green light” to go shoot a rival gang member or to go shoot up a rival gang
member’s house. See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-109 (Rev. 2014) (drive-by-shootings). The
death of another resulting directly from either scenario constitutes murder under Section 97-
3-19. Lofton’s claim that the four were fired upon first after driving by Grass’s house is of
no moment in light of other evidence presented that the four drove down Tillman Street with
criminal intention to fire their weapons at Grass’s house, “green lighted” by Thames.
¶60. Evidence was presented that after the shooting the four drove to Ashton’s place where
the guns (at least one of which Lofton said was provided by Thames) were removed from the
vehicle. Thames admittedly knew at that point that a shooting had occurred and from other
evidence presented, a rational juror could conclude that Thames also knew that it was an
illegal shooting.
¶61. Evidence was presented that Thames then assisted with concealing or disposing of
physical evidence used in the crime. In one of his sworn testimonies, Lofton said that after
the guns were removed from the vehicle, Thames took the guns with him to another location.
20 That Thames, in his statement(s) to investigators, denied having anything to do with
removing the guns simply presented a conflict in the evidence for the jury to resolve.
¶62. Thames also admitted that he assisted one of shooters in taking the vehicle used in the
shooting to another location away from Ashton’s trailer. Thames said he followed behind
Jones in another vehicle as Jones drove the vehicle to his “papaw’s” place. Thames’s claim
that he did so only out of fear of retaliation likewise presented conflict in the evidence for
the jury to resolve.
¶63. Regardless, from all the substantive evidence presented, a rational juror could
conclude that Thames, knowing that an illegal shooting had occurred, knowingly assisted the
principals by helping to conceal and dispose of physical evidence.
¶64. Because the grand jury assigned murder as the underlying offense to the accessory-
after-the-fact charge, the State was required to prove that the victim was dead at the time
Thames committed any acts of assistance and that Thames knew so. Thames admitted that
when he and Ashton had returned back to Ashton’s place after following Jones to his
relative’s place, he learned that Townsend had died. Thames and the group then went to
sleep. The next morning, according to Thames, Ashton drove him (Thames) to his mother’s
house. Ashton then drove Lofton, Myers, and Chapman to a Black Disciple member’s house
in Meridian where the three hid out until all of them were eventually located and arrested
weeks later. According to Lofton, Ashton did so on Thames’s instructions.
21 ¶65. From this evidence, a rational juror could conclude that a murder had occurred. And
Thames, knowing that a murder had occurred, thereafter knowingly assisted those
responsible for the murder to escape or avoid arrest.
¶66. We find that Thames’s conviction for accessory after the fact to murder is supported
by sufficient evidence. And we do not find that the jury’s guilty verdict is contrary to the
weight of the evidence.
CONCLUSION
¶67. For these reasons, Thames’s conviction for accessory after the fact to murder is
affirmed.
¶68. AFFIRMED.
RANDOLPH, C.J., KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.