Bradford v. State

391 So.3d 1254

Raphvell BRADFORD a/k/a Raphael Bradford, Appellant

v.STATE of Mississippi, Appellee

NO. 2022-KA-00493-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

04/16/2024

Rehearing Denied August 13, 2024

HUMPHREYS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, HON. BARRY W. FORD, JUDGE

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT FRED LINGOLD JR., CAMERON LEIGH BENTON, Jackson

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DANIELLE LOVE BURKS

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., GREENLEE AND McCARTY, JJ.

BARNES, C.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A Humphreys County Circuit Court jury found Raphvell Bradford guilty of first-degree murder for killing Michael Yarber. The trial court sentenced Bradford to serve a term of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). After the trial court denied his post-trial motion, Bradford appealed. We find no error and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On the evening of February 28, 2020, Bradford shot and killed his neighbor Yarber, known as "Mike D."¹ Bradford told authorities that he killed Yarber in self-defense after Yarber broke into Bradford’s trailer wielding a knife. Bradford was indicted for first-degree murder under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-19 (Supp. 2017).

¶3. A trial was held in March 2022. Officer David James, an investigator for the Humphreys County Sheriff's Department, testified he received a call regarding the shooting. Arriving at the crime scene, the officer observed Yarber’s deceased body with a gunshot wound to the head, lying in the yard "between [Yarber’s] shed and [Bradford’s] trailer." Officer James estimated that Yarber’s body was approximately ten to fifteen feet from "[t]he back of Mr. Bradford’s trailer."

¶4. Officer James testified that blood was found inside Yarber’s shed, and the photographs of the shed’s interior admitted into evidence depicted dark-red liquid pooled on the floor and splattered on the mattress and bed linens. The defense objected to the officer’s testimony and the admission of the photos on the basis that there were "no crime lab or tests that actually have tested this substance to actually verify that it was blood" and that the photos were cumulative. The trial court overruled the defense’s objections. When the defense later asked Officer James whether he had sent items found in Yarber’s shed for analysis, he stated that he "knew that was blood."

¶5. Officer James further testified that three bullet casings were found approximately seventy feet from the shed, which indicated to the officer "[t]hat the shot was fired out there in the streets." Noting a metal strip from the shed’s doorway had been pulled away and had a splatter of blood on it, Officer James concluded Yarber’s body had been "drug out the shed" into the yard. However, Officer James did not observe any abrasions or bruises on the victim.

¶6. Bradford’s .40-caliber pistol had been recovered, and Officer James interviewed Bradford at the county jail. Bradford admitted that he shot Yarber but claimed it was self-defense because Yarber had broken into his trailer wielding a knife. Officer James, however, observed no signs of a forced entry around the trailer’s back door. The State admitted photos of the interior of Bradford’s trailer. Officer James noted that the television was lying "against the end table" and that several pictures were off the wall. Because "the [television] screen hadn’t been broken or nothing," he speculated that the television had been purposely moved. Officer James saw no other items damaged or knocked over; nor were there any blood or bullet casings found inside Bradford’s trailer. He later acknowledged during cross-examination that the television’s placement and the items in disarray "could be" evidence of a struggle. With regard to Bradford’s claim that Yarber attacked him with a knife, Officer James said that he did not recall whether Bradford had cut marks on his hands. On redirect, the State asked Officer James if Bradford had "visible cuts" on his hands. The officer replied, "Not to my knowledge." Bradford was not medically treated for any cuts.

¶7. Travis York and Aaron Newell, Yarber’s cousins, testified that they were standing outside a nightclub on the night Yarber was killed when Bradford drove up in his car exclaiming that he had killed Yarber. When Bradford told Newell that he had "killed Mike D, he tried to rob me," Newell advised Bradford "to make it easy, just go turn [himself] in." Newell went to Yarber’s home and was the first person to arrive at the scene. Observing Yarber’s body in the yard, Newell initially "thought he was just sleeping." Newell stated that Yarber’s body was "over to the left side" of the "little house" (i.e., Yarber’s shed). He testified that the back door of Bradford’s trailer was open and that "stuff had been turned over" as if "somebody had been fighting," but he did not see any blood in the trailer.

¶8. Earline Yarber, the victim’s mother, testified that her son and Bradford had been friends since they were children. She saw her son at approximately 5:00 p.m. that evening and gave him money. Earline saw Yarber again a short time later at a convenience store, and she gave him a ride home. Yarber said he was buying stuff for Bradford at the store. When they arrived at Yarber’s shed, she saw Bradford sitting outside in a car. Yarber told Earline that he was going to bed. A short while later, she returned, and Newell told her that Yarber had been shot. She saw Yarber lying "[r]ight beside his little house … with no shirt on[,] pants pulled on[,] and one shoe on."

¶9. The state medical examiner Dr. Mark LeVaughn testified that Yarber would not have been able to walk ten or fifteen feet away from where he was shot because his fatal gunshot injury caused massive blood loss and would have been "instantly incapacitating." Because no "soot or stippling" appeared on the victim’s skin, he testified that "the end of the barrel of the gun was three feet away or greater" when the gun was fired. Dr. LeVaughn also opined that the substance in the photo depicting the interior floor of Yarber’s shed appeared to be blood.

¶10. After the State rested, Bradford testified regarding the events preceding the shooting. Bradford’s girlfriend had received a tax refund; so she and Bradford went to the casinos and shops. Bradford bought "shoes, clothes, [and] jewelry." Yarber’s brother Jarcarius visited him the next morning and commented on the purchases. After Jarcarius left, Bradford purchased new tires and headlights for his car. Later that day, while Bradford was installing the headlights, Yarber came over. Yarber found a bottle of gin in Bradford’s car, and Bradford told him he could have it. When Yarber finished the bottle, he asked if Bradford would buy him another one, and Bradford agreed. Yarber then went to the store and returned with his mother. Bradford said Yarber appeared to be arguing with her. When Yarber got out of the car and walked over to Bradford’s car, he was mad that his mother had not given him money. Within thirty minutes, Yarber had drunk the second bottle of liquor. When Bradford refused to purchase Yarber a third bottle, he said Yarber became "upset," cussed him, and left.

¶11. Bradford went inside to take a bath. When he came out of his room, he encountered Yarber coming in the back door of his trailer "swinging a knife." The two men began "scuffling"; Bradford was "falling and tripping over everything." Bradford claimed Yarber cut him "several times across [his] hands." Bradford spotted his pistol on the table and grabbed it. He said he shot Yarber "as we was coming out of the back door." Bradford then "just went to crying" and "ran and jumped in my car and tried to go get him some help." Bradford claimed he did not have a phone to call 911; so he drove until he saw his friends outside the club and confessed to them that he had shot Yarber. Bradford asked Newell to go check on Yarber, and Bradford surrendered to law enforcement.

¶12. Bradford acknowledged on cross-examination that for Yarber to rob him was "[v]ery out of character." Although he and the victim had known each other since they were children, Bradford noted that Yarber had "moved away for a long time" and "wasn’t the same Mike D no more when he came back." Yet he later claimed that he and Yarber were "best friends" and that he "still loved Mike D through everything."

¶13. Bradford further testified that his back door was rarely used. When asked what had happened to the knife Yarber was allegedly swinging, Bradford said he did not know. Bradford explained that he punched Yarber, causing him to fall on the ground, and then shot him. Bradford speculated that the reason the shell casings were found in the street was because he and some friends were "shooting out there for New Years, out in front of the mailbox."

¶14. The defense rested, and the jury found Bradford guilty as charged. On March 25, 2022, the trial court sentenced Bradford to life with eligibility for parole in the MDOC’s custody. Bradford filed a motion for a new trial, alleging (1) that one of the jurors was related to the victim, resulting in prejudice to the defense; (2) that the trial court erred in giving Jury Instruction S-1; (3) that Jury Instruction S-2 was an incorrect statement of the law; (4) there were several violations of his due process and constitutional rights; and (5) the trial court erred in questioning and removing members of the venire without defense counsel and the defendant present. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, and Bradford appeals, raising several issues we address in turn.

DISCUSSION

I. Whether a juror was a relative of the victim.

[1] ¶15.Claiming that juror Charles Bailey was related by marriage to Yarber’s sister,² Bradford argues he is entitled to a new trial because his right to a fair and impartial jury was violated. During voir dire, the prosecution asked the venire if anyone was "familiar with the murder and the death ...