Michael Shantez Willis a/k/a Michael Willis v. State of Mississippi

Citation: Not availableDocket: 2018-KA-01509-SCT

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; April 9, 2020; Mississippi; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael Shantez Willis appeals his conviction for aggravated assault from the Copiah County Circuit Court, where he was sentenced to twenty years in prison as a habitual offender. The appeal follows a trial that revealed a confrontation between Willis, his nephew Kedarious, and the victim, Travell Moore, stemming from a dispute over a stolen radio. The incident escalated after Kedarious and Willis drove to Kedarious's grandmother's home, where they encountered Travell, who was playing dominoes. Witness accounts vary on whether Willis exited the vehicle before or after the confrontation began. Travell was shot multiple times after allegedly reaching for a gun, resulting in severe injuries including paralysis.

Willis raises several issues on appeal, including claims that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Travell’s prior conviction and drug use, improperly ruling Travell’s medical records inadmissible, allowing a rebuttal witness for the State, restricting references to the dismissal of a conspiracy charge, and questioning the sufficiency of evidence for the aggravated assault conviction. The court found no merit in Willis's arguments, affirming the initial judgment without any significant legal errors identified.

The trial court faced several key issues regarding Willis's case. First, there was a question of whether the court erred in denying Willis's motion for a new trial due to alleged juror contact with the victim's twin brother. Second, the appropriateness of Willis's twenty-year sentence as a habitual offender for aiding or abetting aggravated assault was challenged as potentially excessive or disproportionate. 

The court analyzed whether it abused its discretion by excluding evidence related to Travell’s prior felony conviction and his drug use. Willis contended that the trial court improperly barred him from using three impeachment items: (1) Travell’s 2015 felony conviction for breaking into a car, (2) his drug use frequency, and (3) questioning other witnesses about Travell’s drug use. The court noted that since Willis did not provide specific arguments regarding the third item, it would not address it. 

The court applied an abuse of discretion standard to evaluate the trial court's decisions regarding evidence admissibility. It found that the trial court's exclusion of the 2015 conviction was justified, as Willis sought to use it as substantive evidence of Travell’s propensity for similar acts rather than for impeachment of his character for truthfulness. Additionally, the court emphasized that issues not presented to the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. 

Furthermore, the Mississippi Rules of Evidence prohibit using evidence of prior crimes to infer character on specific occasions, reinforcing the trial judge's decision to exclude the evidence. The ruling regarding the scope of cross-examination was also scrutinized, particularly a question about Travell's drug use. The trial court sustained an objection from the State, which Willis argued limited the effectiveness of expert testimony regarding the impact of drugs on behavior during the incident.

Dr. Valentine testified that Travell was likely under the influence of cocaine and marijuana during the incident, which could have affected his mental state. The trial court's prior ruling did not restrict the evidence introduced by Willis and Kedarious, and any potential error was deemed harmless, as per Conners v. State. Willis contended that the trial court improperly deemed Travell’s medical records inadmissible and restricted their use in witness questioning. The State maintained that the records were inadmissible due to lack of certification under Mississippi Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(11), a point Willis did not contest. Instead, he argued the State should have certified the records since they were subpoenaed by the court. 

On July 16, 2018, Willis's counsel acknowledged possession of unverified medical records, and the trial was continued after the court learned of their status. Willis raised objections about the records only after the State's case-in-chief concluded, but the trial court indicated the onus was on Willis to qualify the records for admission. Willis introduced new arguments for their admission on appeal, which were not presented in the trial court, thus barring him from challenging the ruling. 

Willis also argued that allowing the State to call Jenica Powell as a rebuttal witness constituted error. Powell testified that Willis instructed Kedarious to shoot Travell. The court noted that while the State must present relevant evidence during its case-in-chief, rebuttal testimony is permissible to counteract defense evidence. The court evaluated three factors to determine the appropriateness of rebuttal testimony: time consumption, the opposing party's preparedness to challenge the testimony, and the opportunity for surrebuttal. The trial judge's discretion was upheld given the circumstances.

Willis contends that Powell's testimony was unnecessary as it merely provided additional evidence against him without rebutting defense witnesses. However, Powell's testimony effectively countered claims from witnesses who stated they did not hear Willis speak, qualifying it as rebuttal evidence. The court found that Powell's brief testimony did not constitute an abuse of discretion, especially in light of Willis's extensive cross-examination, suggesting he was prepared to challenge her statements.

Willis also argues that he was improperly barred from referencing the dismissal of the conspiracy count during closing arguments. He cites a case allowing comments on opposing parties' statements but fails to provide adequate legal support for his claim. Even if there was an error, it was deemed harmless, reinforcing that the court did not abuse its discretion.

Regarding the sufficiency of evidence for his aggravated assault conviction, the court emphasized that evidence must be viewed favorably to the State. Willis was convicted as a principal in the assault, despite not having fired the weapon himself. To be convicted as such, he must have either aided or abetted the crime, which the evidence indicated he did by directing Kedarious to shoot Travell. Willis's arguments about witness credibility and conflicting testimonies fall outside the court's purview, as these are determinations reserved for the jury.

Evidence presented by Powell and Travell sufficiently supported the jury's finding that Willis aided or abetted in committing the crime, and Willis's challenges to witness credibility were ineffective since it is the jury's role to assess such matters. His claim that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming evidence was also rejected. 

Willis requested a new trial based on alleged juror contact with the victim's twin brother, which was denied by the trial court. The denial of a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Although Willis cited relevant case law, he did not raise the mistrial issue until after the trial, failing to object when the juror's conduct was discovered. The court removed the juror without further objection from Willis, rendering his argument procedurally barred and ineffective since he received the relief he sought.

Regarding his twenty-year sentence as a habitual offender for aiding or abetting aggravated assault, Willis argued it was excessive and disproportionate. However, Mississippi law supports the maximum sentence under the statute as neither cruel nor unusual, and sentences within legal limits are upheld unless they are grossly disproportionate to the crime, which was not established in this case.

Willis argues that his sentence is constitutionally disproportionate, citing Solem v. Helm and other precedents. He contends that the court mistakenly stated that Solem was overruled regarding the Eighth Amendment's proportionality guarantee. However, the court highlights that Willis fails to address the necessary threshold of gross disproportionality, which requires a comparison between the crime and the punishment. Willis focuses on the credibility of witnesses and compares his twenty-year sentence to the average twelve-year sentence for aggravated assault in Mississippi, arguing his sentence is excessive. He downplays his status as a habitual offender and his role in a serious crime. The court notes that his sentence is within statutory guidelines and not disproportionate when compared to the crime committed.

Willis raises additional claims, including that voir dire was unduly limited, but lacks evidence of objections or limitations. His argument regarding the lack of a circumstantial evidence instruction is ineffective since direct evidence was presented. Lastly, he claims the trial court improperly denied his appeal bond, but this motion was never ruled on, making it unpreserved for review. The court concludes that Willis's claims lack merit, affirming the judgment of the Copiah County Circuit Court.

Justice King concurs in part and in result, disagreeing with the majority's analysis regarding the trial court's discretion in allowing cross-examination of Travell about his prior conviction. The trial court's refusal to permit this cross-examination is scrutinized, particularly after Travell provided a misleading answer about his criminal record during direct examination. Defense counsel argued that the State and Travell had "opened the door" for this inquiry, maintaining that the jury should be aware of any inaccuracies in Travell's statements. The precedent set in *Collier v. State* is cited, where the court ruled that when a witness lies on the stand, they can be impeached with undisclosed prior convictions. Justice King asserts that, similarly, Travell's inaccurate testimony warranted cross-examination regarding his full criminal record, which the trial court improperly prohibited. While recognizing this error, Justice King concludes it does not constitute reversible error, thus aligning with the majority's final outcome. Justices Coleman and Chamberlin join this opinion.