THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JOSEPH RONALD HARTFIELD A/K/A APPELLANT RONALD DREW HARTFIELD V. NO.

Transcription

1 E-Filed Document Sep :04: CT SCT Pages: 14 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JOSEPH RONALD HARTFIELD A/K/A APPELLANT RONALD DREW HARTFIELD V. NO CT SCT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE CERTIORARI FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MISSISSIPPI BAR NO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 220 JACKSON, MS TELEPHONE: (601)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT A. The Court of Appeals incorrectly held that the letters were against Graham s penal interest B. The Court of Appeals incorrectly held that there were corroborating circumstances clearly indicating the trustworthiness of the statements in the letters CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES State Cases: Graham v. State, 2012-KA SCT (June 13, 2013) , 8 Jacobs v. State, 870 So.2d 1202 (Miss. 2004) , 9 Mitchell v. State, 495 So.2d 5 (Miss. 1986) Williams v. State, 667 So.2d 15 (Miss. 1996) Federal Cases: Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) Rules: Mississippi Rule of Evience 804(b)(3) ii

4 On September 11, 2014, this Court granted the Appellee s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 17(h), the State of Mississippi files this Supplemental Brief in support of its claim that the holding of the Court of Appeals should be reversed. THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEALS S DECISION TO REVERSE AND REMAND JOSEPH RONALD HARTFIELD S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 24, 2008, the Appellant, Joseph Ronald Hartfield, his wife Tabitha Hartfield, and their two children stopped by Tabitha s grandmother s house to use her telephone. Hartfield and Tabitha left her house to go to the drug store leaving the children to play in the yard. They never returned to pick up the children. At some point that same day, Hartfield and Tabitha traveled to Natasha Graham s trailer 1 where she lived with Ethan Dixon. The four hung out a while at the trailer then traveled to Columbia to get beer and pills. After driving around a while, they stopped to eat in Prentiss, and then stopped at some apartments to get meth and cocaine. Tabitha became angry when they left the apartments because she was not ready to go. Hartfield forced her into the car, and as they drove away, she tried to jump from the car. Dixon held the door closed so Tabitha could not jump from the car while she hit him. This caused Tabitha and Graham to have a confrontation. Eventually, everyone calmed back down, but Tabitha and Graham started arguing again after Tabitha accused Graham of having an affair with Hartfield. The four finally arrived back at Dixon and Graham s trailer. Tabitha tried to leave in Hartfield s car. She ended up driving the 1 Ethan Dixon was also known as Cody Dixon. 1

5 car into some bushes. She got out of the car and stormed down to the driveway where she sat alone. Hartfield and Dixon attempted to get the car out of the bushes but could not. Graham crushed some pills and put them in a glass of water. Graham took the water to Tabitha who drank it. Dixon and Hartfield walked outside to where Tabitha was and Hartfield started strangling her with a dog leash. They saw Jeremy Gibson driving toward the driveway and ran back to the trailer. Gibson pulled up near the driveway and saw Tabitha lying in the road. He honked and yelled for her to move. She sat up and looked at him then laid back down. Gibson knew if Tabitha was there, Hartfield was there and decided to leave since he and Hartfield did not get along. Gibson then changed his mind and decided to go on to the trailer anyway. When he pulled back up, he noticed that Tabitha was still lying in the road. He honked and yelled again, but this time, she did not get up. He drove around her. As he pulled up to the trailer, Gibson saw both Hartfield and Dixon through the windows. Graham walked outside and asked him what he wanted. He asked her if she knew where he could get some pills. She told him no and that now was not a good time for him to be there. He left again, driving around Tabitha who was still lying in the road. After several minutes, Hartfield and Dixon returned to where Tabitha was lying. Hartfield strangled her again. Hartfield then told Dixon that if the police became involved and Dixon told on him, Dixon s family would get hurt. Hartfield told Dixon that Dixon should take the blame for it. Later Graham joined the men and cut Tabitha s wrists. The three then wrapped her body in a blanket and took her to a small trailer which could be pulled by a lawnmower. All three spent the night in Graham s trailer. The next morning, Hartfield left with a friend. Using the lawnmower and trailer, Dixon and Graham took Tabitha s body out into the woods behind Graham s grandmother s old house 2

6 and buried the body. Days later Graham called 911 telling the dispatch operator that she had killed her cousin. 2 Jason Alexander was dispatched to find Graham. He found Graham walking down the road. After establishing that Tabitha had been killed and buried behind Graham s grandmother s house, Graham led officers to the burial site where they found a shallow grave with what appeared to be a knee protruding from the ground. Investigator Richard Cox conducted a search of Graham s house after obtaining her consent and found the dog leash that Graham told him was used in the murder. 3 Graham and Dixon were arrested shortly thereafter. Hartfield was arrested in Hartfield, Dixon, and Graham were charged with the murder of Tabitha Hartfield and with conspiracy to commit murder. Dixon entered into a plea agreement wherein he agreed to testify against both Graham and Hartfield and pled guilty to conspiracy to commit murder and accessory after the fact to murder. Graham went to trial. She was convicted of both murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Hartfield also went to trial. Graham was called as a witness but invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself because her appeal was still pending. Dixon was also called as a witness and his testimony mirrored his testimony given during Graham s trial. Hartfield was ultimately found not guilty of murder but found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. He was sentenced to serve twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. 2 Graham and Tabitha were cousins. 3 Dixon gave a statement shortly after the arrest wherein he accepted the blame for the murder. (Transcript p. 316 and 323). At Hartfield s trial, he testified that he gave that statement because that is what he was told to do by Hartfield. (Transcript p. 316and 331). He testified that later he decided to tell the true story of what happened that night and admitted to lying in the first statement. (Transcript p. 317). His later statement and testimony at both Graham and Hartfield s trials indicated that Hartfield actually killed Tabitha. 3

7 Hartfield appealed his conviction and sentence raising five issues: I. Whether the trial court erred in excluding Graham s letters; II. Whether the trial court erred in the denial of a peremptory strike; III. Whether the trial court erred in the admission of bad-acts evidence; IV. Whether evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction; and V. Whether the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals ruled upon said appeal on January 14, 2014 addressing only the first and third issues. The Court of Appeals found no error with regard to the third issue but reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court after finding that the trial court erred in excluding Graham s letters from evidence. 4 Hartfield v. State, 2012-KA COA (January 14, 2014). The State filed a Motion for Rehearing with the Court of Appeals which was denied. The State then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari which took issue with the following holdings by the Court of Appeals: Certainly each one of these letters was contrary to Graham s pecuniary interest and subjected her to criminal liability, such that she would not have made the statements unless she believed it to be true. Hartfield at we find that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude the letters Graham wrote based on a lack of corroboration and indicia of trustworthiness. Hartfield at 33. This Court granted the State s Petition for Certiorari. II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The trial court did not abuse its discretion excluding Graham s letters from evidence. 4 The letters at issue include several letters written from jail by Graham to her mother, her then boyfriend, and to Hartfield and are quoted verbatim in the Court of Appeals opinion. In the letters, Graham claims that Dixon killed Tabitha while both she and Hartfield were inside. In the letters, she further claims that the only involvement she had was after Tabitha was already dead, that she had no knowledge of Dixon s plan to kill Tabitha, and that Hartfield had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder. 4

8 Two of the three requirements of Mississippi Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) were not met. First, Graham s statements in the letters did not expose her to criminal liability as required by the Rule. Second, there were no corroborating circumstances clearly indicating the trustworthiness of the statements in the letters. III. ARGUMENT The letters were properly excluded as they did not meet two of the three requirements under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3). As the Court of Appeals held, in order for the letters to be admissible under this rule, Graham had to be unavailable, the statements in the letters had to be against her penal interest, and the trial judge must have found there to be some corroborating circumstances clearly indicating the trustworthiness of the statements in the letters. Hartfield at 19. There is no controversy as to the unavailability of Graham as she invoked her Fifth Amendment right when called to testify during Hartfield s trial. However, the two remaining requirements were not met. A. The Court of Appeals incorrectly held that the letters were against Graham s penal interest. Under Rule 804(b)(3) the statement would have to be one which tended to subject the unavailable declarant to criminal liability. Additionally, the Rule refers to [a] statement tending to EXPOSE the declarant to criminal liability. (emphasis added). In this case, Graham s statements in the letters did not expose her to criminal liability as she was already charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder when the letters were written. Furthermore, she had already admitted to killing Tabitha prior to writing the letters. The comment to the Rule states that the reason for this rule is that no reasonable person would make such a statement and 5

9 INVITE POSSIBLE criminal prosecution if the statement were not true. (emphasis added). In this case, Graham s letters could not have invite[d] possible criminal prosecution as the criminal prosecution had already begun. Prior to Hartfield s trial Graham was found guilty of the murder of Tabitha Hartfield as well as conspiracy to commit murder with Ethan Dixon and Ronald Hartfield. She appealed her conviction for conspiracy to commit murder arguing that the evidence was insufficient and appealed her conviction for murder arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Graham v. State, 2012-KA SCT (June 13, 2013). Graham did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to her murder conviction, but instead challenged the conspiracy to commit murder conviction claiming that she acted alone, 5 which is in stark contrast to her claims in the letters at issue in this case. This Court found there was sufficient evidence showing that Graham conspired with Dixon and Hartfield to murder Tabitha. Id. In arguing that her murder conviction was against the weight of the evidence, Graham argues that the evidence showed that Hartfield and Dixon killed Tabitha, again in stark contrast to the claims made in the letters. This Court held that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Id. However, in the letters at issue in Hartfield s case, Graham shifts the blame for the murder to Dixon alone and claims that he forced her to help him after the killing. While it could be argued that the letters set her up for criminal culpability as an accessory after the fact, considering that Graham was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, criminal 5 As previously noted, in these letters Graham claims that Dixon killed Tabitha while both she and Hartfield were inside and denies any involvement until after Tabitha was already dead. In these letters, she also claims that Hartfield had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder. 6

10 6 culpability for accessory after the fact would be a much better outcome. Additionally, the 7 letters actually set her up to assert the defense of duress. When considering that Graham initially told the 911 operator that she killed her cousin, then after being arrested, began writing letters to various individuals claiming that Dixon, not her, killed Tabitha, the statements lose any trustworthiness they may have based on her 8 implicating herself in the cover up of the murder. While the letters may slightly implicate her in that they provide evidence of her assisting after the murder, they do not implicate her in any way with the murder or with planning the murder which is in stark contrast with what she originally told the 911 operator. Additionally, as stated above, the letters indicate that what participation she did have was under duress because of Dixon s alleged threats. These letters seem to set up a perfect defense that she did not kill Tabitha and her participation after the fact was the result of duress. CERTAINLY, A LETTER CONFESSING TO ACTIONS WHICH, IF WERE TRUE, WOULD DECREASE ONE S CRIMINAL CULPABILITY CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST. Furthermore, this shows that Graham s story changes depending upon what she is trying to accomplish. At certain points, she claims she acted alone and then later claims that her only 6 Graham was tried and convicted in March of The letters at issue were written prior to her trial when she was charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. It was in her interest to admit only to enough to constitute accessory after the fact during that time. 7 In the letters, Graham claims that Dixon threatened her in order to get her to participate in the cover up of the murder forcing her to cut Tabitha s wrists to make it look like suicide and forcing her to help him get rid of the body. 8 As the Mississippi Supreme Court held in Williams v. State, post-arrest statements made by one accused pointing the finger at another are as a matter of common experience among the least trustworthy of statements. 667 So.2d 15, 20 (Miss. 1996) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 495 So.2d 5, 11 (Miss. 1986)) (overruled on other grounds). 7

11 participation was after Tabitha was killed. Certainly it is beneficial to claim she acted alone when trying to escape a conspiracy conviction (See Graham v. State, 2012-KA SCT (June 13, 2013)) and as Judge Irving noted in the dissenting opinion just as convenient to claim Hartfield had nothing to do with it after she has been convicted (See letters at issue) in order to help Hartfield since her letter to him clearly reveals that she was motivated to help him because of her affection for him. Hartfield at 50. Thus, the Court of Appeals s holding that the letters were against her pecuniary interest and subjected her to criminal liability was erroneous. B. The Court of Appeals incorrectly held that there were corroborating circumstances clearly indicating the trustworthiness of the statements in the letters. There was nothing in the record indicating the trustworthiness of Graham s letters. As set forth above, a clear motivation for writing the letters was Graham s affection for Hartfield as well as a desire to decrease her culpability in the crime from murder and conspiracy to commit murder to accessory after the fact with a potential duress defense. Additionally, as Judge Irving noted in his dissenting opinion, a proper interpretation of Graham s letters leads to the inescapable conclusion that she was not present when Tabitha was killed and that the circumstances surrounding Tabitha s death were related to her by Dixon, although her account of the post-death circumstances is based on her personal knowledge. Hartfied at 48. Thus, as Judge Irving concluded, the critical statements depicting the circumstances of Tabitha s death, which the majority finds are corroborated by Dixon s testimony, are nothing more than double hearsay, not admissible under Rule 804(b)(3). Id. Hartfield s case is analogous to that of Jacobs v. State, wherein the defendant s first witness invoked his Fifth Amendment right because he was indicted in a separate proceeding 8

12 with a charge of criminal conspiracy in the murder for which [the defendant] was on trial. 870 So.2d 1202, 1207 (Miss. 2004). The defendant sought to have statements made by that witness to one of the investigating officers to show that there was another gun that was used to put [the defendant] in duress forcing him to kill. Id. The trial court found the statements beyond the scope of Rule 804(B)(3) because they were found to be inconsistent, not corroborated by other evidence and contradicted by evidence already admitted. Id. After holding that if the declarant s truthfulness is so clear from the surrounding circumstances that the test of crossexamination would be of marginal utility, then the hearsay rule does not bar admission of the statement at trial, this Court noted that the dispositive question is whether [the witness s] statement shows particularized guarantees of trustworthiness Id. at 1208 (quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 US 805, 820, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3149, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)). This Court found that in Jacob s case, it did not, holding: Because there were three different versions of [the witness s] statement, it cannot be said that if the statement had been cross-examined at trial it would have been of marginal utility. Due to the fact that there is three different versions of Bailey s statement, there would be a need for cross-examination at trial. Therefore, the hearsay rule bars admission of the statement due to lack of trustworthiness. Id. (emphasis added). Likewise, Graham presented differing versions of what happened on the night in question. In her letters she seemed to indicate that it was all Dixon and the little part she played occurred after Tabitha was killed and was the result of duress by Dixon. However, the evidence at trial showed that when Graham called 911, she told the 911 operator that she killed her Tabitha. (Transcript p. 119). Of course, Graham s version, as told in the letters, is quite different from Dixon s version of how things happened. Also, as the trial court noted, the version set forth in the letters is in contradiction with the evidence presented during Graham s 9

13 trial. With this many versions of what happened that night, two of which came from Graham, there is no doubt that extensive cross-examination would be necessary. As two of the three requirements for the letters to be admissible under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 804(B)(3) were not met, the letters were properly excluded under the Rule. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals incorrectly held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow them into evidence. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the State of Mississippi respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reverse the Court of Appeals s opinion reversing and remanding Joseph Hartfield s conviction and sentence. Respectfully submitted, JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: s/ Stephanie B. Wood STEPHANIE B. WOOD SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MISSISSIPPI BAR NO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 220 JACKSON, MS TELEPHONE: (601)

14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing pleading or other paper with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Further, I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the following non-mec participants: Honorable Prentiss G. Harrell Circuit Court Judge Post Office Box 488 Purvis, Mississippi Honorable Hal Kittrell District Attorney Post Office Box 1208 Purvis, Mississippi Robert Whitacre, Esquire Attorney At Law Whitacre Law Firm, PLLC Post Office Box 107 Hattiesburg, Mississippi This the 17th day of September, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 220 JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI TELEPHONE: (601) s/ Stephanie B. Wood STEPHANIE B. WOOD SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 11