Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 04-23-2017

Case Style:

Anthony Murry a/k/a Anthony James Murray v. State of Mississippi

Case Number: 2015-KA-01811-COA

Judge: Virginia C. Carlton

Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Plaintiff's Attorney: n

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BARBARA WAKELAND BYRD

Defendant's Attorney: n

OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BY: HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS

Description: On June 7, 2014, Murry shot Marquavious Brent in the ankle during an altercation.
A grand jury indicted Murry for aggravated assault. At Murry’s trial, the jury considered all
the evidence and testimony presented and then found Murry guilty of aggravated assault.
The circuit court sentenced Murry to fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections, with ten years to serve, five years suspended, and five years of
supervised probation.
¶4. Murry subsequently filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)
2
or, in the alternative, a new trial. In addition to his other assignments of error, Murry claimed
in his motion that juror misconduct denied him the right to a fair trial. Murry alleged that,
during the course of the trial, Dennis Harris, one of the jurors, initiated improper contact with
Murry’s fiancée, Laronda Brooks, and tried to begin a relationship with Brooks. As a result
of this alleged misconduct, Murry argued that Harris lost his ability to remain fair and
impartial and tainted the jury. To support his claims, Murry attached to his motion Brooks’s
affidavit, copies of pictures that Harris sent Brooks, and copies of text messages between
Harris and Brooks.1
¶5. The circuit court held a hearing solely on Murry’s allegation of juror misconduct.
Brooks testified that she first encountered Harris on Tuesday, October 13, 2015, on the
second day of Murry’s trial. According to Brooks, Harris initiated contact with her in the
hallway during a trial recess. Brooks stated that Harris asked her whether he was too late.
Brooks testified that she thought Harris was asking whether he was late returning to the
courtroom after the recess. As a result, Brooks said she responded, “No, you’re not too late.”
Brooks stated that Harris then told her he was not talking about returning to the courtroom
on time, and he asked for her phone number. Brooks testified that she gave Harris her phone
number and told him that she was “with the [D]efendant.” Brooks further testified that she
1 The record reflects that Harris sent Brooks several explicit text messages. One of Harris’s text messages to Brooks stated, “Treat me right[,] an[d] I will take care of you.” Another of Harris’s text messages to Brooks said, “You [will not] have to worry about anything[,] an[d] I [am] not just saying something.” In addition, the record reflects that Harris sent Brooks a nearly naked picture of himself. 3
was unaware at the time of their initial conversation that Harris was a juror in Murry’s case.
¶6. Brooks stated that Harris called her Tuesday night after their initial contact and that
the two spoke for about fifteen minutes. She said that, during their conversation, Harris
disclosed to her that he was a juror in Murry’s trial. In addition, Brooks stated that Harris
told her that he felt Murry was innocent. Brooks also testified that Harris called her again
the following night, on Wednesday, after the jury reached a verdict in Murry’s case.
According to Brooks, Harris sent her text messages saying she did not have to worry and that,
if she treated him right, he would take care of her. She further stated that Harris sent almost
nude pictures of himself and asked her to send a picture of herself to him.
¶7. Brooks testified that she first tried to contact the public defender’s office on the day
of Harris’s initial contact. However, Brooks testified that the defense attorney, Dennis
Martin, was out of the office. Brooks then stated that she told another of Murry’s attorneys,
Candace Gregory-Mayberry, about the contact the following day as they left the courtroom
after the jury’s verdict. Brooks said she told Gregory-Mayberry that she (Brooks) felt the
verdict was not right since Harris had said he felt that Murry was innocent. Brooks stated
that, after her disclosure, the defense attorneys instructed her to come to their office and sign
an affidavit about her contact with Harris.
¶8. Despite Brooks’s testimony about when she told the defense of her contact with
Harris, Gregory-Mayberry testified differently. Under oath, Gregory-Mayberry denied that
Brooks told her about Harris’s alleged misconduct as they left the courtroom the day of the
4
jury verdict. Instead, Gregory-Mayberry testified that she first learned of the contact the next
day on Thursday, October 14, 2015, and that Brooks must have been confused as to the
timing of the disclosure.
¶9. As the record reflects, Brooks and Harris continued their communication with one
another until October 18, 2015, which was four days after the jury reached its verdict.
Brooks signed her affidavit on October 19, 2015. Although she was present in the courtroom
after the communication with Harris began, Brooks stated that she failed to notify the defense
or the court earlier because she was unsure of what to do.
¶10. Harris also testified about the allegation of juror misconduct and never denied his
communication with Brooks during the trial. However, Harris stated that Brooks initiated
the contact with him. Harris testified that he was standing in the hallway during a recess on
the second day of trial when an unfamiliar young woman approached him and asked for his
phone number. Harris said he gave the woman his phone number and that she called him
later that evening. According to Harris, Brooks told him during their conversation that she
was Murry’s sister. Harris said that he then cut off contact with Brooks until the jury had
reached its verdict the following day. Despite Brooks’s testimony to the contrary, Harris
stated that he never told Brooks he thought Murry was innocent.
¶11. Harris testified that Brooks also called him Wednesday night after the jury reached
its verdict. Harris said that he missed Brooks’s call and that, when he tried to call her back,
she did not answer. However, Harris testified that Brooks then returned his missed call.
5
Harris claimed that he only sent pictures of himself to Brooks because she asked him to do
so after they discussed working out and his job as a personal trainer. Harris testified that his
last communication with Brooks was around October 18, 2015, which was four days after
the trial ended. Despite the circuit court’s instruction to report any improper contact, Harris
stated he did not report the contact with Brooks because he never discussed the jury’s
deliberations with her and because he felt an obligation to finish his jury service.
¶12. After considering the testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing, the circuit court
entered its order on Murry’s motion for a JNOV or a new trial. While acknowledging its
concern over the improper communications between Brooks and Harris, the circuit court
questioned the credibility and veracity of Brooks’s testimony, the timing of her disclosure
about the contact, and whether she purposefully initiated the contact. The circuit court found
that Brooks “had more than ample opportunity to inform [Murry’s] counsel and/or this
[c]ourt” about the contact prior to the jury’s verdict. Although Brooks claimed she told the
defense about the contact while exiting the courtroom after the jury verdict, the circuit court
dismissed her statement as false since Gregory-Mayberry, as an officer of the court, denied
learning of the improper contact “prior to the verdict being returned or while in the
courthouse.”
¶13. In addition to questioning Brooks’s credibility, the circuit court concluded that her
contact with Harris failed to alter the jury’s verdict. The circuit court found that the eleven
other jurors had not been exposed to the improper contact and that they all found Murry
6
guilty. The circuit court also determined that both Harris and Brooks “generally contend[ed]
the trial was not discussed” and that Harris had denied telling Brooks he thought Murry was
innocent.
¶14. Based on its findings, the circuit court denied Murry’s motion for a JNOV or a new
trial. Aggrieved, Murry timely appeals his conviction and sentence.
DISCUSSION
¶15. In addition to his other claims raised on appeal, Murry argues that the circuit court
misapplied caselaw in denying his motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. We
review the circuit court’s denial of Murry’s new-trial motion for an abuse of discretion. See
Dependable Abrasives Inc. v. Pierce, 156 So. 3d 891, 895 (¶12) (Miss. 2015). Because we
find Murry’s argument on this issue dispositive, we decline to address the merits of his
remaining assignments of error.
¶16. When inquiring into the validity of a jury’s verdict, Rule 606(b)(1) of the Mississippi
Rules of Evidence provides:
[A] juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.
However, Rule 606(b)(2) states that a juror may testify about the following: (1) whether
“extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention” or (2)
whether “an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror.”
7
¶17. The Mississippi Supreme Court has previously explained the procedure a trial court
should follow when claims of juror misconduct or extraneous information arise. Roach, 116
So. 3d at 132 (¶17). The trial court first determines whether an investigation is warranted.
Id. “An investigation is warranted if the trial judge finds that ‘good cause exists to believe
that there was in fact an improper outside influence or extraneous prejudicial information.’”
Id. (quoting Gladney, 625 So. 2d at 419). The trial court’s inquiry stops if it finds “no
threshold showing of external influences[.]” Id. However, where the trial court possesses
“good cause to believe there was improper influence on the jury, the court should conduct
a posttrial hearing” and “determine whether the communication was made and the nature of
the communication.” Id. If the court’s “investigation reveals that the communication was
made, the court must determine whether it was reasonably possible that the communication
altered the verdict.” Id. We review the “[t]he trial court’s decision as to whether it is
reasonably possible the communication influenced the juror” for an abuse of discretion.
Wallace v. State, 166 So. 3d 520, 527 (¶31) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).
¶18. In the present case, the circuit court found good cause existed to conduct a posttrial
evidentiary hearing on Murry’s claim of juror misconduct. The circuit court served
subpoenas on both Brooks and Harris. Although Brooks and Harris both testified that they
communicated with one another during Murry’s trial, their accounts differed as to who
initiated the contact during the trial recess on Tuesday and who called the other later that
same evening.
8
¶19. The record is unclear as to whether Harris and Brooks initially knew each other’s
relationship to Murry when they exchanged phone numbers. However, the circuit court
found that they discovered the connection to Murry during their fifteen-minute phone
conversation Tuesday evening. Brooks stated that Harris told her Tuesday night he was a
juror in Murry’s case. Although Harris testified that Brooks claimed to be Murry’s sister
rather than his fiancée, Harris nevertheless admitted that he learned during the conversation
that Brooks had a close relationship with Murry. The record also clearly establishes that,
regardless of whether Harris thought Brooks was Murry’s fiancée or sister, he engaged in
romantic overtures and communications with Brooks during the course of the trial.
¶20. Based on their testimony, the circuit court found that both Brooks and Harris generally
contended that they never discussed the trial. Even so, the circuit court acknowledged
Brooks’s claim that Harris told her during their Tuesday-night conversation he believed
Murry was innocent. For his part, however, Harris denied making any such statement to
Brooks or anyone else. Harris did admit, however, that he sent Brooks text messages after
the jury’s verdict stating that Brooks did not need to worry and that, if she treated him right,
he would take care of her. In addition, Harris sent Brooks several nearly nude pictures of
himself and asked her to send him a picture of her. According to Harris, his statements were
merely an attempt to be nice to Brooks and to reassure her following the verdict. He also
testified that he only sent the pictures of himself, and the request for her picture, because the
two had discussed his work as a personal trainer.
9
¶21. At the hearing, Brooks testified that she first tried to inform the public defender’s
office about the improper contact on Tuesday, the same day that the contact initially
occurred. However, Brooks stated the attempt was unsuccessful because Murry’s attorney
was out of the office. Brooks further testified that she then informed the defense attorneys
about the improper contact as they exited the courtroom following the jury’s verdict. One
of Murry’s attorneys, though, testified that Brooks actually informed the defense of the
improper contact the day after the jury’s verdict and that Brooks must have been confused
about the timing of her disclosure.
¶22. Despite conflicting testimony as to when she actually informed the defense about the
improper contact with Harris, the record reflects that Brooks did, in fact, inform Murry’s
attorneys. By contrast, Harris, in direct violation of the court’s instructions to the jury, never
revealed his contact with Brooks until questioned about it during the evidentiary hearing.
Even so, the circuit court faulted only Brooks for the failure to more timely disclose the
improper contact. The circuit court stated that Brooks possessed “more than ample
opportunity to inform [Murry’s] counsel and/or this [c]ourt” but that she failed to do so. As
a result, the circuit court questioned whether Brooks purposefully initiated the improper
contact and waited until after the jury’s verdict to report the communication. In addition, the
circuit court found that Harris was the only juror exposed to the improper contact. The
circuit court therefore concluded that, because the eleven other jurors were not exposed to
the contact and still found Murry guilty, “it [was] not reasonably possible [the]
10
communication altered the verdict.” As required by precedent, after determining that the
improper contact occurred between Harris and Brooks, the circuit court should have further
determined whether it was reasonably possible that the contact and communication altered
the verdict. See Roach, 116 So. 3d at 132 (¶17).
¶23. Upon review, we find the circuit court abused its discretion by misapplying relevant
caselaw to its determination of whether juror misconduct justified granting Murry a new trial.
See Dependable Abrasives, 156 So. 3d at 895 (¶12). The undisputed testimony reflects that
an improper romantic communication occurred between Harris and Brooks that displayed a
motive for Harris to alter the verdict in this case. As the record demonstrates, Harris made
romantic overtures to Brooks and sent her almost nude pictures of himself. Thus, all that
remained was for the circuit court to “determine whether it was reasonably possible that the
communication altered the verdict.” Roach, 116 So. 3d at 132 (¶17) (citing Gladney, 625 So.
2d at 419). Although the circuit court acknowledged the proper standard in its judgment, the
record nevertheless reflects that the court misapplied Mississippi caselaw and focused on
improper bases to reach its decision. Instead of determining whether it was reasonably
possible that the communication between Brooks and Harris altered the verdict, the circuit
court emphasized the timing of Brooks’s disclosure and whether she had purposefully
initiated the contact.
¶24. Regardless of who first initiated the contact and when the contact was disclosed, the
record is clear that inappropriate contact and communication repeatedly occurred between
11
Harris and Brooks during and after Murry’s trial and that this improper contact resulted in
juror misconduct. The established contact between Harris and Brooks evidences a motive
on Harris’s behalf to alter or impact the verdict to pursue his interest in Brooks. As stated,
following the jury’s verdict, Harris sent Brooks almost nude pictures of himself and
suggestive messages stating that he would take care of her if she treated him right.

Outcome:

¶25. The State and Federal Constitutions guarantee Murry the right to a fair trial before an
impartial jury. See James v. State, 912 So. 2d 940, 950 (¶17) (Miss. 2005). However, based upon a review of the applicable standard set forth in Mississippi caselaw, the record reflects it is reasonably possible that the communication between Brooks and Harris altered the
verdict in this case. See Gladney, 625 So. 2d at 419. As a result, we find the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Murry’s new-trial motion. We therefore reverse the circuit court’s judgment and remand this case
for a new trial.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: