Musa A. Parrott v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                   COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Annunziata, Humphreys and Senior Judge Coleman
    Argued at Richmond, Virginia
    MUSA A. PARROTT
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.   Record No. 1014-99-2               JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS
    MAY 15, 2001
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PETERSBURG
    James F. D'Alton, Jr., Judge
    (Phillip T. DiStanislao, Jr.; Hardy &
    DiStanislao, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
    Appellant submitting on brief.
    John H. McLees, Jr., Senior Assistant
    Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney
    General, on brief), for appellee.
    Musa Parrott appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, of
    first degree murder, attempted murder, and use of a firearm in
    the commission of the crimes.   Parrott contends that the trial
    court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to convict him
    and that it erred in allowing a statement made to police by a
    witness to be read into evidence, after the witness had invoked
    his Fifth Amendment privilege, thereby violating Parrott's Sixth
    Amendment right to confront the witness.
    * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    I.   Background
    "On appellate review, we examine the evidence in the light
    most favorable to the Commonwealth, and we may not disturb the
    jury's verdict unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to
    support it."   Ashby v. Commonwealth, 
    33 Va. App. 540
    , 548, 
    535 S.E.2d 182
    , 186-87 (2000).
    So viewed, the evidence presented at trial established that
    witness Daniel Harris was in the Green Lantern restaurant and
    bar in the early morning hours of February 21, 1997.     He was
    there with his friend, William Parham.      When the two entered the
    building, Harris entered first and stepped toward the bar, where
    he faced "the middle of the club, the center of the club where
    [he could] see everything."    There were over 100 people in the
    club at the time.
    Harris immediately noticed a gentleman in the middle of the
    room, standing with his back to him, make a pulling motion with
    his right hand from the side of his waist area and raise his
    hand "turning to the side."    Harris then heard four gunshots and
    saw a "muzzle flash."   The gunman stated, "Everybody get out of
    my way.   I mean everybody."
    Another man, who was with the gunman, began "pushing people
    out of the way to go out the door.      And the gentleman that fired
    the shots turned and started running."      As the gunman ran toward
    the door, he tripped on a chair.   When he stood up, he was
    "face-to-face" with Harris.    He pointed the gun at Harris and
    - 2 -
    said, "Didn't I say everybody get out of my way?"    He then
    pulled the trigger.   The gun made a clicking noise, but did not
    fire, and the gunman ran out of the bar.
    After a few moments, Harris realized that someone in the
    bar had been shot.    He collected himself.   Then, he and Parham
    stepped out of the bar and saw the gunman and his companion get
    into a "little red car" and drive away.    The gunman was driving,
    and the companion was in the passenger seat.    Harris and Parham
    followed the car in Parham's Honda.     They followed for several
    blocks, but the gunman's companion began shooting at them and
    they eventually lost sight of the red car.
    Several months later, Parrott was arrested for the murder
    of Kiel Alston, the man who had been shot and killed in the
    Green Lantern on February 21, 1997. 1   At trial, the medical
    examiner testified that Alston had been shot four times. 2
    However, only two bullets and a bullet fragment were recovered
    from Alston's body.
    The detective who investigated the scene testified that he
    found "two bullets" at the Green Lantern.     One was lodged in the
    1
    At trial, Harris testified that he had grown up with
    Alston and had been friends with Alston and his family.
    2
    The wounds were in the area of Alston's chest and abdomen.
    Two of the wounds appeared to be the result of gunshots from
    close range.
    - 3 -
    ceiling and one was lodged in the floor. 3   He also found Alston's
    coat lying on a chair, next to where he had been shot.
    Upon searching the apartment where Parrott was living,
    police found a "six-shot revolver" and bullets that were
    consistent with the type used in the shooting. 4   The police also
    found a notebook, which Parrott stated was his "songbook," that
    contained a letter/song dated "3/20/97" which read as follows:
    yes me set up a plan, day pon me motion, And
    here comes this man, want step ina me way,
    want fe dis I man, Just me and Rudeboy ina
    they club we a jam, everything start, From
    wha on one omen, Rudeboy till nine fe chill
    tru him Know how me stand, they boy don't
    3
    Parrott alleges that there were actually six gunshots,
    instead of four, as Harris testified. By implication, Parrott
    argues that Harris's testimony was inaccurate and that the
    gunman must have known that the gun had no bullets left in it
    when he pointed the gun at Harris and pulled the trigger.
    In support of this, Parrott states that the medical
    examiner testified four bullets were recovered from Alston's
    body. He further notes that the detective who investigated the
    scene testified that he could account for the recovery of six
    bullets, four from the body of the deceased and two from the
    crime scene. However, Parrott misstates the evidence. The
    medical examiner testified that she recovered only two bullets
    and one fragment from the body of the victim. The autopsy
    report supports her testimony. Furthermore, the detective
    merely testified that he had recovered two bullets from the
    scene and that there "should be four on the medical autopsy
    report." Despite the detective's testimony, the autopsy report
    establishes that only two bullets and one fragment were
    recovered from the victim.
    4
    The firearms expert was unable to positively identify the
    revolver as the murder weapon because the barrel had been
    tampered with, or "gouged," causing the "land and groove"
    impressions that would be imprinted on bullets shot from the
    weapon to be altered.
    - 4 -
    know we flex don't even know fe we gang, him
    a laugh after we tru we favor. Sampletons
    they, boy a fool him never know fe we
    intention, by that time me ready fe kill
    someone, so the boy rush me and grab, like
    say me like a man, hold from they waste, a
    Seddam him try slam, one shot ina him heart,
    push him off with me hand, take two steps
    back, than finish they battleman, from me
    lick one shot Rudeboy done understand him
    pop off him gun, clear they way fe Seddam,
    me a run and push with me gun ina me hand,
    run jump ina the car, pon they gas me just
    slam. two pussy ina Honda try fe follow
    they Don, Rudeboy popoff, fe him gun just
    Jam, so me think me a Driver, show hope they
    can hang, take two corner, and them fire
    shot after man, but me gone, can't stay,
    time fe make a new plan. Once I look and
    see what things become to be with me gun ina
    me hand, Its time fe me fe just flee, to the
    hill, and just go on, relaxe and chill, sick
    a tired of the world, tired fe see the blood
    spill,
    By:   Saddam 5
    After being taken to the police station and read his
    Miranda rights, Parrott was interviewed about the murder.
    Parrott first stated that the gun found in his home was his, but
    that he had loaned it to "a guy named Sheeke" for two days at
    the beginning of the year, and that he did not ask Sheeke what
    he had done with it.   After being told by the detective that the
    gun was being sent to the lab, Parrott said that Sheeke told him
    he had shot a man in the Green Lantern.    Parrott first stated
    5
    We have included each of the spelling and grammatical
    errors as they are written in Parrott's letter.
    - 5 -
    that he didn't know where Sheeke lived.    Later, Parrott stated
    he thought Sheeke lived on River Road Terrace.   Finally, Parrott
    stated that Sheeke's name was "Paul Donaldson" and that he lived
    in Baltimore but had an apartment on River Road Terrace where he
    sold marijuana.
    After further questioning, Parrott confessed he knew about
    the shooting and conceded that he was in the bar that evening.
    He stated that Sheeke was talking to a girl and that Alston, who
    was drunk, said, "Don't talk to this girl.   This is my -- my
    boy's sister."    Sheeke said, "All right man," and told Alston to
    leave him alone.   Alston then took his coat off, picked up a
    beer bottle and attempted to hit Sheeke.   Parrott said he "was
    scared" and ran, and "Sheeke shot him."
    Parrott said that after the shooting, he and Sheeke ran to
    the car Parrott had been driving, his girlfriend's red Ford
    Aspire, and drove away.   He stated that he drove and that Sheeke
    rode in the passenger seat.   Parrott stated that they had indeed
    been followed by two men in a Honda and that Sheeke had shot at
    the Honda from the passenger seat of the car.
    During Parrott's interview, police were also interviewing a
    friend of Parrott's, Daron Brown.   After being misled by
    detectives and told that Parrott had placed him at the Green
    Lantern that evening, Brown gave a statement implicating Parrott
    as the gunman.    Brown indicated that he was Parrott's companion
    that evening and corroborated the story about the fight
    - 6 -
    occurring over a girl, as well as his actions in clearing the
    way for Parrott to get out and the escape and chase by the two
    men in the Honda.
    At trial, Parrott's ex-girlfriend, Reesha Allen, testified
    that she was the owner of the red Ford Aspire and that she often
    loaned it to Parrott to drive.    She also testified that Parrott
    went by the street names of "Don" and "Saddam" and that his
    friend Daron Brown went by the street name "Rude Boy."
    Harris, who had earlier identified Parrott as the shooter
    in a photographic lineup, made an in-court identification of
    Parrott as the gunman.   The Commonwealth also called Brown as a
    witness; however, Brown pled the Fifth Amendment and refused to
    answer questions.   The Commonwealth therefore sought to admit
    the statement Brown had made to police as a statement "against
    penal interest," an exception to the hearsay rule.   Over
    Parrott's objection, contending that the statement was not truly
    made "against penal interest," the trial court admitted the
    statement, finding that the witness was "unavailable" and that
    his statement otherwise met the requirements of the penal
    interest exception.
    Parrott was ultimately convicted of all four charges and
    sentenced to a total of sixty-eight years in the Virginia state
    penitentiary.
    - 7 -
    II.    Analysis
    We first note that whether evidence is admissible falls
    within the broad discretion of the trial court, and the court's
    ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of
    discretion.   See Blain v. Commonwealth, 
    7 Va. App. 10
    , 16, 
    371 S.E.2d 838
    , 841 (1988).   By definition, when the trial court
    makes an error of law, an abuse of discretion occurs.     See
    Taylor v. Commonwealth, 
    28 Va. App. 1
    , 9, 
    502 S.E.2d 113
    , 117
    (1998) (en banc).
    The Commonwealth concedes that the trial court erred in
    admitting Brown's statement.     In Lilly v. Virginia, 
    527 U.S. 116
    (1999), which was decided after the trial of this matter, the
    United States Supreme Court held that the admission of an
    accomplice's confession is a violation of a defendant's
    constitutional right to confrontation, unless "the declarant's
    truthfulness is so clear from the surrounding circumstances that
    the test of cross-examination would be of marginal utility."
    Id. at 134 (citation omitted).    No argument is made that such
    circumstances are present here.
    Nevertheless, "an otherwise valid conviction should not be
    set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the
    whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond
    a reasonable doubt."   Dearing v. Commonwealth, 
    259 Va. 117
    , 123,
    
    524 S.E.2d 121
    , 125 (2000) (citation omitted).
    - 8 -
    Although Confrontation Clause error is of
    constitutional magnitude, it is subject to
    harmless error analysis. Constitutional
    error is harmless . . . only if the
    beneficiary of the constitutional error
    . . . prove[s] beyond a reasonable doubt
    that the error complained of did not
    contribute to the verdict obtained. The
    test, therefore, is not whether laying aside
    the erroneously admitted evidence there was
    other evidence sufficient to convict beyond
    a reasonable doubt . . ., but, more
    stringently, whether there is a reasonable
    possibility that the evidence complained of
    might have contributed to the conviction.
    In other words, even if the other evidence
    amply supports the . . . verdicts, [error is
    not harmless when] the disputed testimony
    may well have affected the . . . decision.
    Williams v. Commonwealth, 
    32 Va. App. 395
    , 399-400, 
    528 S.E.2d 166
    , 168-69 (2000) (citations omitted).
    With regard to the charge of first degree murder, Code
    § 18.2-32 provides that "[m]urder . . . by any willful,
    deliberate, and premeditated killing . . . is murder of the
    first degree . . . .   Malice, an essential element of all grades
    of murder, distinguishes murder from manslaughter."   Rhodes v.
    Commonwealth, 
    238 Va. 480
    , 485, 
    384 S.E.2d 95
    , 98 (1989)
    (citations omitted).
    To sustain a conviction for attempted murder, the evidence
    must establish a specific intent to kill the victim, as well as
    an overt but ineffectual act committed in furtherance of this
    criminal purpose.   See Hargrave v. Commonwealth, 
    214 Va. 436
    ,
    437, 
    201 S.E.2d 597
    , 598 (1974).
    - 9 -
    Finally, to convict an accused of violating Code
    § 18.2-53.1, the Commonwealth must prove that the accused
    actually had a firearm in his possession and that he used or
    attempted to use the firearm, or displayed the firearm in a
    threatening manner, while committing or attempting to commit one
    of the specified felonies, which include murder.   See Yarborough
    v. Commonwealth, 
    247 Va. 215
    , 218, 
    441 S.E.2d 342
    , 344 (1994).
    Here, it is clear that Brown's statement was not important
    to the Commonwealth's case.   At most, it was cumulative of the
    evidence already solicited from Harris, Parrott's own statement
    to the police, and the evidence found in Parrott's home.    In
    fact, even excluding Brown's statement, the evidence
    overwhelmingly proved that Parrott was guilty of the crimes
    charged.
    Thus, we conclude that although the admission of Brown's
    statement compromised Parrott's right of confrontation, the
    error, under the circumstances of this case, was harmless beyond
    a reasonable doubt.   Furthermore, in light of our holding in
    this regard, we find no merit in Parrott's argument that the
    evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
    Affirmed.
    - 10 -