Sign Up for Vincent AI
Thompson v. State
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: MARK KEVIN HORAN, BRADLEY DAVID DAIGNEAULT, Grenada
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CANDICE LEIGH RUCKER
BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ.
McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. A woman was accused of attacking her boyfriend's ex-wife as they drove down the road. A jury convicted her of drive-by shooting. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2. After the divorce of Antonio Winters and Lucy Brown, a tumultuous custody dispute ensued over Winters’ son. This custody dispute was largely centered around an alleged Amber alert that was issued when the child was with Winters and his girlfriend, Styvekka Thompson.
¶3. Winters and Thompson subsequently met with the Kosciusko chief of police to ask about the Amber alert and to provide documentation of custody. The chief advised the couple he believed their custody dispute should be handled in chancery court.
¶4. Winters’ ex-wife, Lucy Brown, worked near Kosciusko Check Delay. After their visit to the police station, Winters and Thompson went to Ms. Brown's workplace. A camera captured what happened when they arrived. The video showed the couple enter the store and approach Ms. Brown. Winters immediately confronted his ex-wife stating, Thompson told Ms. Brown, "[C]atch me outside."
¶5. As Ms. Brown walked toward the door of the business, she pushed Winters and told him to leave. Winters then hit his ex-wife twice in the face. Ms. Brown walked toward her workstation, but he followed her. The video then showed him attempting to kick her. Winters told his ex-wife, "You know I'll kill you." He then told Ms. Brown not to "call anyone about his son."
¶6. At this point, Ms. Brown called 911. When officers arrived at the business, she told them Winters and Thompson left in an SUV—a white Tahoe.
¶7. Ms. Brown subsequently left work. While driving, she noticed the white Tahoe. She attempted to avoid the SUV by pulling off the highway and into a subdivision. However, the SUV began following her.
¶8. When the SUV approached the right side of her car, she saw Thompson in the driver's seat and Winters in the passenger seat. Ms. Brown later testified Winters passed Thompson a gun, and Thompson fired it into Ms. Brown's car. Ms. Brown was shot in her left upper arm.
¶9. Nurse Michelle Bates’ car was behind the victim's car. She immediately called 911. The nurse got out of her car and administered first aid to Ms. Brown before the ambulance arrived. She described the scene to the dispatcher as well as where Ms. Brown was shot. The 911 operator asked Bates if Ms. Brown was aware of who shot her. Ms. Brown frantically responded, "Antonio Winters and his girlfriend."
¶10. Investigators arrived on the scene, and Ms. Brown again said Winters and Thompson had shot her.
COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
¶11. Thompson was indicted for one count of drive-by shooting. Prior to trial, Winters plead guilty to aggravated assault.
¶12. During the trial, Ms. Brown testified about the ongoing custody dispute with her ex-husband. She explained what happened at her workplace, and during her testimony, the video footage of Winters and Thompson attacking her was played for the jury.
¶13. The prosecution also played Ms. Brown's call to the police. The jury heard Ms. Brown ask for the police to arrest her ex-husband. She told the 911 operator that Winters "hit [her] in [her] face." The jury then heard a heated argument between Ms. Brown and Winters in the background of the 911 tape.
¶14. She also testified about the events immediately prior to the shooting. Specifically, she stated she was able to see into the white Tahoe as she was being chased. She testified Thompson was in the driver's seat, and Winters was in the passenger seat. She saw Thompson mouth the words, as she continued following Ms. Brown. She testified she was able to see Winters pass Thompson a gun and then fired it toward her.
¶15. Eyewitness Michelle Bates, the nurse at the scene, testified that she came to an abrupt stop when both a white Tahoe and a silver SUV pulled out in front of her. She testified, She further testified that she could "only see someone in the passenger seat." But when asked about the windows of the white Tahoe, Bates stated that they were "very tinted."
¶16. During Bates’ testimony, the prosecution played several 911 calls that were made on the date of the shooting. The first call the jury heard was from Bates. The jury heard her tell the 911 operator that someone in a vehicle in front of her had just pulled out a gun and shot a lady. As the witness approached Ms. Brown's car, she exclaimed, "Oh, God I see blood." When Bates asked Ms. Brown if she knew who shot her, she immediately responded, twice, "Antonio Winters and his girlfriend."
The nurse then described to the dispatcher that the vehicle was a white Tahoe and described the area where Ms. Brown was shot. She stated, "It looks like the entry wound is in the left upper arm."
¶17. The jury also heard recorded calls the police made to each other while searching for the suspect. They identified Antonio Winters as the same subject from the domestic violence incident at Ms. Brown's workplace. The police knew they were searching for Winters and his girlfriend and believed her last name was Cain.
¶18. Investigator Greg Collins testified regarding his investigation at the scene of the shooting. He testified that Ms. Brown told him Antonio Winters and his girlfriend had shot her. Collins also stated that Winters told him that he and Thompson left the police station and traveled to Ms. Brown's workplace in a grey Volvo. When asked if he knew about a grey Volvo being found, Collins responded, "No."
¶19. The chief of police testified he saw Winters and Thompson get inside a white Tahoe. He testified that as they were leaving the police department, he "looked out [his] window ... and saw them getting in a white colored ... Tahoe-type vehicle."
¶20. Both Winters and Thompson took the stand. Winters testified that the couple went to Ms. Brown's workplace simply to borrow money. The crux of his testimony was that after the fight with his ex-wife, he and Thompson left in separate cars. He told the jury he left in a white Tahoe, and Thompson left in a grey Volvo. He stated when he saw Ms. Brown "pull [a] gun out [the] window [he] shot first."
¶21. Winters admitted he plead guilty to aggravated assault. When asked why he plead guilty, Winters responded, "[B]ecause I'm already a convicted felon and I'm not fixing to get a life sentence."
¶22. Thompson also testified that she and Winters left the business in separate cars. She told the jury after leaving Check Delay that she did not see Winters again until later that night.
¶23. On cross-examination, the State asked her if she heard the questioning that the police were seeking a woman named Cain. She responded, "My name is Styvekka Thompson." The prosecution then asked if she had registered to vote, and Thompson said she had. "Did you put a middle name in there, Styvekka?" she was asked. The record showed she did not answer. The assistant district attorney then stated:
¶24. The issue of her name was not over. The prosecution next called the circuit clerk as a rebuttal witness. The circuit clerk testified her office had a verified voter registration card for Thompson that listed her full name as Styvekka Keeta Cain. The State admitted this document into evidence with no objection by the defense.
¶25. At the end of trial, the jury found Thompson guilty of one count of drive-by shooting. The trial court sentenced Thompson to serve eight years in custody and five years postrelease supervision.
¶26. Thompson appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶27. Thompson argues that the verdict in this case was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence because Ms. Brown was the only witness who placed Winters and Thompson in the Tahoe. She also argues that Ms. Brown was the only witness who testified that Thompson was the shooter.
¶28. "A challenge to the weight of the evidence is separate and distinct from a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence in that it seeks a new trial." Dehart v. State , 290 So. 3d 373, 376 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). "[O]nly in those cases where the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court disturb it on appeal." Green v. State , 312 So. 3d 1214, 1217-18 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). Critically, "issues of weight and credibility of witness testimony are within the sole province of the jury as a fact finder." Id . at (¶18) (internal quotation marks omitted). "As an appellate court, we are not permitted to sit as the thirteenth juror and assume the role of juror on appeal." Id . (internal quotation marks omitted).
¶29. The jury saw and heard the video of Ms. Brown's altercation with Winters and Thompson. The jury also heard Ms. Brown's 911 call in which she told the operator that the couple left her workplace in a white Tahoe. Ms. Brown testified at great length regarding the moments immediately before the shooting. Specifically, she stated she saw Thompson shoot her from the driver's seat of the white Tahoe. This dovetailed with the testimony from the Kosciusko chief of police that both Winters and Thompson left...
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting