Rainey v. State

334 So.3d 1124

Courtney L. RAINEY

v.STATE of Mississippi

NO. 2019-CT-01651-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 10, 2022

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: E. CARLOS TANNER, III, Jackson

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA BYRD, Jackson

EN BANC.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

GRIFFIS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. This certiorari case considers whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Courtney Rainey of the crime of witness intimidation and whether the fifteen-year sentence violates Rainey's Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate and affirm the judgment of the Madison County Circuit Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Courtney Rainey was indicted on two counts. Count I charged Rainey with the crime of voter fraud under Mississippi Code Section 23-15-753 (Rev. 2018). Count II charged Rainey with the crime of witness intimidation under Mississippi Code Section 97-9-113(1)(d) (Rev. 2020). The jury found Rainey guilty of Count II but could not decide on Count I, and the circuit court declared a mistrial as to Count I. On the conviction for Count II, Rainey was sentenced to serve fifteen years with three years suspended and five years’ probation, together with court costs and fees. The circuit court denied Rainey's post-trial motions.

¶3. Rainey filed a timely appeal, and the appeal was deflected to the Court of Appeals. A divided Court of Appeals reversed and rendered Rainey's conviction and sentence. Rainey v. State , No. 2019-KA-01651-COA, ––– So. 3d ––––, ––––, 2021 WL 973050, at *1 (Miss. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2021). Judge Deborah McDonald's well-written opinion addressed Rainey's issues. First, Rainey claimed that her conviction for witness intimidation violated her First Amendment right to free speech. The Court of Appeals held that Rainey's conviction did not violate her First Amendment right to free speech. Id. at ––––, 2021 WL 973050, at *8. Second, Rainey claimed that insufficient evidence supported her conviction for witness intimidation. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed and rendered Rainey's conviction. Id. at ––––, 2021 WL 973050, at *10. Third, Rainey claimed that the circuit court abused its discretion when it sentenced her to the statutory maximum without considering the proportionality of the sentence under the Eighth Amendment. The Court of Appeals did not address this issue. Id.

¶4. The State filed a petition for writ of certiorari arguing that the Court of Appeals erred, that sufficient evidence sustained Rainey's conviction for witness intimidation, and that Rainey's sentence did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. This Court granted certiorari.

DISCUSSION

I. Did Rainey's conviction under the witness-intimidation statute violate her First Amendment right to free speech?

¶5. The Court of Appeals ruled that "[b]ecause Rainey's speech in this instance could constitute prosecutable speech under Mississippi's statute, we cannot hold the statute unconstitutional as applied to her facts. Accordingly, we do not find that Mississippi Code Annotated [S]ection 97-9-113 as applied to her facts violated Rainey's First Amendment free-speech right." Id. at ––––, 2021 WL 973050, at *18. Rainey did not challenge this ruling. Therefore, it is not before this Court and will not be addressed.

II. Was sufficient evidence presented to convict Rainey of the crime of witness intimidation under Mississippi Code Section 97-9-113 ?

A. Standard of Review

¶6. This Court reviews a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge de novo. Body v. State , 318 So. 3d 1104, 1108 (Miss. 2021). "[T]he critical inquiry is ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Parish v. State , 176 So. 3d 781, 785 (Miss. 2015) ). "This Court ‘accept[s] as true all evidence that is favorable to the State, including all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, and ... disregard[s] evidence favorable to’ [the defendant]." Barfield v. State , 22 So. 3d 1175, 1186 (Miss. 2009) (alterations in original) (quoting Moore v. State , 996 So. 2d 756, 760-1 (Miss. 2008) ).

B. The Crime Charged

¶7. Under Count II, the indictment charged that Rainey

intentionally and knowingly attempt[ed] to solicit, encourage or request a witness to provide false information intended to defeat or defend against an existing criminal charge or to hinder or interfere an ongoing investigation of criminal act, to-wit: Emma Ousley (a witness to a crime purportedly committed by Defendant) at her home at the Canton Place Apartments, by requesting Ms. Ousley to change her story that she provided to investigators so the defendant would not get in trouble[.]

Section 97-9-113(1)(d) provides that "[a] person commits the crime of intimidating a witness if he intentionally or knowingly: ... [s]olicits, encourages, or requests a witness to provide false information intended to defeat or defend against an existing criminal charge or to hinder or interfere an ongoing investigation of a criminal act." Miss. Code Ann. § 97-9-113(1)(d) (Rev. 2020).

C. The Evidence Admitted

¶8. The evidence established that Rainey was a City of Canton resident and employee. In March 2017, Rainey actively supported a local candidate in the upcoming Canton municipal election. Rainey sought to register voters and encountered Emma Ousley at Ousley's apartment. Rainey approached Ousley's apartment and met Ousley, Marvin Cain, and a man named Red, who were drinking beers on the porch when Rainey met them.

¶9. Rainey asked if they were registered to vote. Cain said that he was not. Rainey then helped Cain and Ousley, who had recently moved and not updated her information, fill out the voter registration forms. Rainey filled out the forms, allowed Cain and Ousley to read over the answers, and then they signed the forms. Rainey then said that she would buy them a round of beer and gave $10 to Red, who went to purchase the beer.

¶10. As the election neared, Rainey again encountered Ousley. Rainey offered Ousley a ride to allow Ousley to vote by absentee ballot. After Ousley voted, Rainey gave her $10 for lunch.

¶11. In early 2018, the Madison County District Attorney's office investigated potential voter fraud associated with the May 2017 Canton municipal election. Carroll Phelps, Samuel Goodman, and Max Mayes conducted the investigation.

¶12. Mayes and Phelps contacted Ousley and questioned her about Rainey. They asked Ousley about Rainey's voter-registration visit. Based on Ousley's answers, Mayes wrote a statement, which Ousley signed, that revealed that Rainey had come to the apartments, called out for anyone who wanted to vote, and asked if anyone wanted to make some money. The statement also revealed that Rainey had given both Marvin and Ousley $10 each for a beer after she registered them.

¶13. Shortly after Ousley spoke with investigators, Rainey confronted Ousley at her apartment complex about her statements to the investigators. The record did not mention how Rainey learned of the investigation or how Rainey knew that investigators questioned Ousley.

¶14. At trial, Ousley testified about each of Rainey's visits to her apartment and all events related to her registration and voting. Ousley also testified about her encounter with Rainey after the investigation had begun.

¶15. Ousley acknowledged at trial that she lied to investigators Mayes and Phelps because they made her nervous. Ousley told the investigators that Rainey gave Ousley, Cain, and Red each $10 to purchase beer after they registered to vote. Ousley corrected her statement and testified that Rainey had given them $10 to split amongst them for beer. Ousley testified that she did not tell the investigators that Rainey had given her $10 for lunch after she had voted. Ousley also said that the investigators did not coerce, intimidate, or frighten her to make a statement.

¶16. Ousley then testified about her encounter with Rainey. Ousley said that Rainey did not intimidate her but that Rainey asked her what she said to investigators. Ousley recalled that she told Rainey that she "was going to tell the truth." However, Ousley later contradicted this statement and testified that Rainey told Ousley "to tell the truth." When Ousley was done with the conversation, she told Rainey to leave, and Rainey "just left, it wasn't no bad thing about that."

D. Whether the evidence admitted was sufficient.

¶17. Rainey was charged with a violation of Section 97-9-113(1)(d). The State had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rainey intentionally or knowingly "solicit[ed], encourag[ed], or request[ed]" that Ousley, a witness, "provide false information intended to defeat or defend against an existing criminal charge or to hinder or interfere an ongoing investigation of a criminal act." Miss. Code Ann. § 97-9-113(1)(d).

¶18. In the majority opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled:

With no proof of intimidation, threats, harassment, or proof that Rainey instructed Ousley to give false statements, the verdict of the jury must be overturned....

But here the one witness against Rainey was Ousley who in her sworn testimony to the jury said that Rainey did not threaten or intimidate her. Nor did Rainey pressure her to give false testimony. To reiterate, Ousley repeatedly testified that Rainey told her to tell the truth. In his dissent, Judge Wilson asserts that we have overstepped our bounds in our review. He quotes Poole v. State , 46 So. 3d 290, 293-94 (¶ 20) (Miss. 2010), "We are not required to decide—and in fact we must refrain from deciding whether we think the State proved the elements. Rather, we must decide whether a reasonable juror could rationally say that the State did."

But immediately thereafter, the supreme court in Poole says, "If,

...