IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2011-KA-01031-SCT
MARCUS O’NEAL FLOWERS a/k/a TUPAC a/k/a MARCUS FLOWERS
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/13/2009 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MARCUS D. GORDON COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: NEWTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS BY: ERIN E. PRIDGEN GEORGE T. HOLMES ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE B. WOOD DISTRICT ATTORNEY: MARK SHELDON DUNCAN NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 01/24/2013 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC.
LAMAR, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Marcus O’Neal Flowers was convicted of murder for fatally shooting Charles Wash.
He claims that the jury’s verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and
asks for a new trial. He believes he is entitled to such relief because there were conflicts
between the State’s evidence and his evidence, and the credibility of the State’s main witness
was called into question. Flowers’s arguments are without merit. Evidentiary conflicts and credibility issues are questions for the jury, not grounds for a new trial, and the jury’s verdict
is not against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the conviction of Marcus Flowers is
affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Charles Wash was shot and killed on April 7, 2008, in an area of Little I-20 Road in
Newton County, Mississippi, containing five trailer homes. Deputy Jeremy Pinson was the
first officer on the scene and discovered Wash’s body in the driver seat of a truck that had
crashed into a tree near the trailers. Wash had been shot multiple times in the chest and face
and was dead when Deputy Pinson arrived. Soon after Deputy Pinson arrived, David Hilton
came out of one of the trailers. Hilton told Deputy Pinson that Wash was dropping him off
at his mother-in-law’s trailer when a man in dark clothing and a ski mask came out of the
woods and began firing at Wash. Hilton said he did not see the shooter’s face but could
identify the shooter as Marcus Flowers based on the shooter’s voice. Hilton later admitted
to police that he had agreed several weeks earlier to help Flowers kill Wash but insisted that
he had nothing to do with the shooting on April 7, 2008. The day after the shooting, the
police recovered a white sock, an Air Jordan tennis shoe, and a white tank-top shirt from the
crime scene. DNA evidence was not obtained from the shoe or the sock, but Flowers was
determined to be the majority DNA contributor to the white tank-top shirt. The police also
recovered Flowers’s cell phone from the scene. Finally, the police obtained conflicting
statements from several people regarding Flowers’s whereabouts the night of the shooting.
¶3. Based on this evidence, Flowers was charged with Wash’s murder. At trial, the State
put on thirteen witnesses and entered thirteen exhibits. The most incriminating testimony
2 was provided by David Hilton; Mary Cooper; Santana Griffin, and Cedric Walker; Randy
Patrick and Mark Spence; Dr. Bo Scales; and J.C. Wash (“J.C.”).1 Hilton, the only witness
to the crime, identified Flowers as the shooter. Cooper placed Flowers at the crime scene
thirty minutes before the shooting. Griffin and Walker claimed that Flowers had arrived at
their apartment near the crime scene shortly after the shooting without his shirt or cell phone
and in need of a ride. Patrick and Spence established that Flowers’s cell phone was
recovered near the crime scene the day after the shooting, and Dr. Scales told the jury that
Flowers was the majority contributor of DNA on the white tank-top shirt found near the
crime scene. Finally, J.C. testified that, when he drove by Flowers’s home soon after the
shooting, no cars were there and no one appeared to be home.
¶4. The defense responded by discrediting Hilton and establishing an alibi for Flowers.
Specifically, the defense focused on testimony that Hilton previously had agreed to help
Flowers kill Wash and questioned the plausibility of Hilton’s story based on the location of
Wash’s gunshot wounds. With regard to Flowers’s alibi, his girlfriend and sister testified
that he was home all night and his neighbor claimed to have seen him in his driveway around
the time of the shooting. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and Flowers filed a motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative for a new trial. The trial court
denied Flowers’s motion, and he appealed.
1 J.C. Wash is not related to the victim, Charles Wash.
3 LAW AND ANALYSIS
¶5. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously denied Flowers’s
motion for a new trial. A motion for a new trial should be granted only in “exceptional
cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.” 2 When reviewing
the denial of a motion for a new trial, the evidence must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the verdict.3 A verdict should be upheld unless it “is so contrary to the
overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an
unconscionable injustice.” 4 This occurs only if reasonable men could not have found the
defendant guilty based on the evidence when it is viewed in the light most favorable to
the verdict.5
¶6. As delineated above, the evidence against Flowers consisted of eyewitness
testimony from Hilton, testimony from several corroborating witnesses, including
Flowers’s friends and law-enforcement officers, and DNA evidence. Convictions have
been affirmed based on similar evidentiary support. In Jenkins, Orlando Jenkins was
indicted for the murder of Andre Barnes.6 At trial, Winters, who also was indicted for
2 Weatherspoon v. State, 56 So. 3d 559, 564 (Miss. 2011). 3 Id. at 564. 4 Jenkins v. State, 947 So. 2d 270, 278 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Baker v. State, 802 So. 2d 77, 81 (Miss. 2001)). 5 Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 844 (Miss. 2005) (quoting Amiker v. Drugs For Less, Inc., 796 So. 2d 942, 947 (Miss. 2000)). 6 Jenkins, 947 So. 2d at 274.
4 Barnes’s murder, testified that he saw Jenkins kill Barnes.7 Three other witnesses
implicated Jenkins by placing him in Barnes’s company the night of the murder and
saying he had hidden his gun and the clothes he was wearing that night.8 The State also
put on evidence that Barnes’s blood was found on Jenkins’s shoe.9 The jury convicted
Jenkins of murder, and this Court affirmed, finding that the verdict was not against the
overwhelming weight of the evidence.10 As in Jenkins, the State here supported its case
with eyewitness testimony from a biased third party, testimony from several
corroborating witnesses, and DNA evidence. In reviewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, we find that the verdict is supported by the weight of the
evidence. Flowers’s conviction is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
¶7. Substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict convicting Flowers of murder for
killing Wash. The only witness to the crime identified Flowers as the shooter. Flowers’s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2011-KA-01031-SCT
MARCUS O’NEAL FLOWERS a/k/a TUPAC a/k/a MARCUS FLOWERS
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/13/2009 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MARCUS D. GORDON COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: NEWTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS BY: ERIN E. PRIDGEN GEORGE T. HOLMES ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE B. WOOD DISTRICT ATTORNEY: MARK SHELDON DUNCAN NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 01/24/2013 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC.
LAMAR, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Marcus O’Neal Flowers was convicted of murder for fatally shooting Charles Wash.
He claims that the jury’s verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and
asks for a new trial. He believes he is entitled to such relief because there were conflicts
between the State’s evidence and his evidence, and the credibility of the State’s main witness
was called into question. Flowers’s arguments are without merit. Evidentiary conflicts and credibility issues are questions for the jury, not grounds for a new trial, and the jury’s verdict
is not against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the conviction of Marcus Flowers is
affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Charles Wash was shot and killed on April 7, 2008, in an area of Little I-20 Road in
Newton County, Mississippi, containing five trailer homes. Deputy Jeremy Pinson was the
first officer on the scene and discovered Wash’s body in the driver seat of a truck that had
crashed into a tree near the trailers. Wash had been shot multiple times in the chest and face
and was dead when Deputy Pinson arrived. Soon after Deputy Pinson arrived, David Hilton
came out of one of the trailers. Hilton told Deputy Pinson that Wash was dropping him off
at his mother-in-law’s trailer when a man in dark clothing and a ski mask came out of the
woods and began firing at Wash. Hilton said he did not see the shooter’s face but could
identify the shooter as Marcus Flowers based on the shooter’s voice. Hilton later admitted
to police that he had agreed several weeks earlier to help Flowers kill Wash but insisted that
he had nothing to do with the shooting on April 7, 2008. The day after the shooting, the
police recovered a white sock, an Air Jordan tennis shoe, and a white tank-top shirt from the
crime scene. DNA evidence was not obtained from the shoe or the sock, but Flowers was
determined to be the majority DNA contributor to the white tank-top shirt. The police also
recovered Flowers’s cell phone from the scene. Finally, the police obtained conflicting
statements from several people regarding Flowers’s whereabouts the night of the shooting.
¶3. Based on this evidence, Flowers was charged with Wash’s murder. At trial, the State
put on thirteen witnesses and entered thirteen exhibits. The most incriminating testimony
2 was provided by David Hilton; Mary Cooper; Santana Griffin, and Cedric Walker; Randy
Patrick and Mark Spence; Dr. Bo Scales; and J.C. Wash (“J.C.”).1 Hilton, the only witness
to the crime, identified Flowers as the shooter. Cooper placed Flowers at the crime scene
thirty minutes before the shooting. Griffin and Walker claimed that Flowers had arrived at
their apartment near the crime scene shortly after the shooting without his shirt or cell phone
and in need of a ride. Patrick and Spence established that Flowers’s cell phone was
recovered near the crime scene the day after the shooting, and Dr. Scales told the jury that
Flowers was the majority contributor of DNA on the white tank-top shirt found near the
crime scene. Finally, J.C. testified that, when he drove by Flowers’s home soon after the
shooting, no cars were there and no one appeared to be home.
¶4. The defense responded by discrediting Hilton and establishing an alibi for Flowers.
Specifically, the defense focused on testimony that Hilton previously had agreed to help
Flowers kill Wash and questioned the plausibility of Hilton’s story based on the location of
Wash’s gunshot wounds. With regard to Flowers’s alibi, his girlfriend and sister testified
that he was home all night and his neighbor claimed to have seen him in his driveway around
the time of the shooting. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and Flowers filed a motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative for a new trial. The trial court
denied Flowers’s motion, and he appealed.
1 J.C. Wash is not related to the victim, Charles Wash.
3 LAW AND ANALYSIS
¶5. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously denied Flowers’s
motion for a new trial. A motion for a new trial should be granted only in “exceptional
cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.” 2 When reviewing
the denial of a motion for a new trial, the evidence must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the verdict.3 A verdict should be upheld unless it “is so contrary to the
overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an
unconscionable injustice.” 4 This occurs only if reasonable men could not have found the
defendant guilty based on the evidence when it is viewed in the light most favorable to
the verdict.5
¶6. As delineated above, the evidence against Flowers consisted of eyewitness
testimony from Hilton, testimony from several corroborating witnesses, including
Flowers’s friends and law-enforcement officers, and DNA evidence. Convictions have
been affirmed based on similar evidentiary support. In Jenkins, Orlando Jenkins was
indicted for the murder of Andre Barnes.6 At trial, Winters, who also was indicted for
2 Weatherspoon v. State, 56 So. 3d 559, 564 (Miss. 2011). 3 Id. at 564. 4 Jenkins v. State, 947 So. 2d 270, 278 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Baker v. State, 802 So. 2d 77, 81 (Miss. 2001)). 5 Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 844 (Miss. 2005) (quoting Amiker v. Drugs For Less, Inc., 796 So. 2d 942, 947 (Miss. 2000)). 6 Jenkins, 947 So. 2d at 274.
4 Barnes’s murder, testified that he saw Jenkins kill Barnes.7 Three other witnesses
implicated Jenkins by placing him in Barnes’s company the night of the murder and
saying he had hidden his gun and the clothes he was wearing that night.8 The State also
put on evidence that Barnes’s blood was found on Jenkins’s shoe.9 The jury convicted
Jenkins of murder, and this Court affirmed, finding that the verdict was not against the
overwhelming weight of the evidence.10 As in Jenkins, the State here supported its case
with eyewitness testimony from a biased third party, testimony from several
corroborating witnesses, and DNA evidence. In reviewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, we find that the verdict is supported by the weight of the
evidence. Flowers’s conviction is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
¶7. Substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict convicting Flowers of murder for
killing Wash. The only witness to the crime identified Flowers as the shooter. Flowers’s
cell phone and a shirt containing his DNA were found near the crime scene. Two of
Flowers’s friends testified that Flowers had shown up at their apartment shortly after the
7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. at 278. See also Ross v. State, 954 So. 2d 968, 1016-18 (Miss. 2007). Flowers relies on Ross in his brief. However, in Ross, this Court upheld Ross’s conviction and the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial despite its concerns over the contradictory and inconclusive evidence, noting that “[a]bsent from the record are the myriad nuances and subtle impressions from which jurors weigh credibility, and this Court must be wary of encroaching on the peculiar province of the jury.” Ross, 954 So. 2d at 1016-18.
5 shooting without a shirt or his cell phone. A police officer testified that Flowers’s car was
not at his home shortly after the shooting. And while Flowers did present evidence that
contradicted the State’s theory of the case, that does not entitle him to a new trial. The
jury was required to weigh all the evidence presented to it, judging the weight and
credibility of each witness’s testimony. The jury resolved the conflicts in favor of the
State, and its verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the
conviction of Marcus Flowers for the murder of Charles Wash is affirmed.
¶8. CONVICTION OF MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AFFIRMED. SENTENCE TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN CAUSE NO. 08-CR-066-NW-G.
WALLER, C.J., DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, P.JJ., KITCHENS, CHANDLER, PIERCE, KING AND COLEMAN, JJ., CONCUR.