Gerome Moore Merged File

7/26/2019 Gerome Moore Merged File

1/13

IN

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

HINDS

COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

F I L E D

PLAINTIFF

vs.

MAY

26 2 16

Circuit Court

No.:

15-176

GEROME MOORE

ZACK

WALLACE CIRCUIT CLERK

DEFENDANT

MOTION FOR MENTAL EVALUATION

COMES NOW,

the Defendant,

Gerome

Moore, by and through counsel, and

respectfully moves this Court , pursuan t to Miss. Code. Ann., Section 99-13-11 (1972), and

Rule 9.06 of the Miss. Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit

Court

Practice, to enter an order

for the Defendant, Gerome Moore, to be ordered to submit to a mental examination to be

performed by Dr. Christopher Lott at St. Thomas Hall, St. Dominic Hospital, 969 Lakeland

Dr., Jackson, MS 39216 or the Mississippi State Hosptial, with a copy of the report

thereof

to be furnished to Hinds County Circuit

Court

Judge

Jeff

Weill, the Honorable Aafram

Sellers, attorney for the Defendant, and the Hinds County District Attorney, in support

thereof, would show unto the Court the following to-wit:

I.

Defendant,

Gerome

Moore, was charged

on

or about January 7, 2015 with Capital

Murder. Subsequendy, on February 19, 2015, an indictment was filed in the Circuit Court of

Hinds County charging

Gerome

Moore with Capital Murder.

II.

It

is

alleged that

on or

about

January 7, 2015 the Defendant , being an accessory

before the fact and

therefore deemed a principal, did willfully, unlawfully,

and

feloniously kill

Carolyn Temple, a

human

being, by shooting her in the chest with a .380 pistol.

III.

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW Document #: 20 Filed: 05/26/2016 Page 1 of 4


2/13

That the Defendant, 17 years old at the time of this incident, appears to have been

under great mental

and

emotional distress at the time

of

this incident and continues to

exhibit the effects of his mental health issues as

he

attempts to discuss the facts

of

this case

with his attorney

and

also claims lack

of

recollection for certain facts. The Defendant

suffers from bipolar disorder,

conduct

disorder, marijuana dependence, alcohol abuse,

ecstasy abuse, parent/child relation problems, and numerous psychological stressors. That

one month prior

to

this alleged incident, this

Defendant

was diagnosed with the foregoing

conditions after being treated

and

examined by the Mississippi State Hospital. Please see

attached as Exhibit A , Letter dated

December

3, 2014 from Mississippi State Hospital.

IV.

That Defendant's Attorney was not

provided

this information until May 17, 2016 by

the Defendant's mother. That

Defendant

failed

to

mention his treatment at the Mississippi

State Hospital

in

previous discussions about this case prior to his mother informing

Attorney Sellers of this information.

v.

The State of Mississippi, pursuant to Lavender

v

State, 378 So.2d 656 (Miss. 1980),

has stated that justice will be best served by a mental examination at the earliest possible date

to resolve any questions of a defendant's mental condition, including but not limited to:

a)

his capacity to

understand

and knowingly, intelligendy and voluntarily waive constitutional

rights;

b)

his competency to

stand

trial;

c)

McNaughton - Rule insanity at the time of

offense; d) whether the offense with which the defendant is charged was committed while

the defendant was

under the

influence

of

extreme mental

or

emotional disturbance;

and

e)

whether

the capacity to appreciate the criminality

of

his

conduct or to conform

his

conduct

to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired. See also

McGinnis v State,

133

So.2d 399. Said Mental examination should consist of a comprehensive evaluation of

Defendant' s personality including a comprehensive battery of psychological test.



3/13

VI.

The Defendant further request that any and all medical records of the Defendant

pertaining to previous, and if applicable, present, psychiatric or psychological examination or

treatment, be released to Dr. Lott and his staff, upon their request.

WHEREFORE,

THE

ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED,

the Defendant

requests the Court to enter an order for the Defendant, Gerome Moore, to be ordered to

submit to a mental examination by the Dr. Christopher Lott

or

the Mississippi State

Hosptial, with a copy

of

the report thereof to the Court, and Honorable Aafram Sellers,

attorney for the Defendant, and the Hinds County District Attorney and to also provide him

any other relief appropriate under the circumstances.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

this the 25th day of May, 2016.

SELLERS ASSOCIATES, PLLC

5760 Interstate

55

North, Suite 300

Jackson, Mississippi 39211

Telephone: (601)352-0102

Facsimile: (601)352-0106

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Aafram Sellers, attorney for the Defendant, do hereby certify that I have served via

U.S. Mail a true and correct copy

of

the foregoing Motion for Mental valuation to:

Randy Harris, Esq.

Assistant District Attorney

Hinds County District Attorney's Office

P.O. Box 22747

Jackson,

MS

39225-2747

THIS the 25th day of May, 2016.

Y SELLERS



4/13

,

MISSISSIPPI STATE HOSPITA

P.O. BOX 157-A, WHITFIELD, MS 39193 (601) 351-8000

WWW.MSH.STATE.MS

This

information has been disclosed to you from

. .

1

. has been protec.ed.

whose conftdentta

tty

. f h .

December 3, 2014

Statutes/regulations proh1bit you from malong

et

d. I . of

t t

w'Jt out rite specific written consent o f the

1sc osure u d b

Attention: Hinds County Youth Court

Jcrson to whom it perlait;:>.

or

as

otherwtse

pcrmttte y

: .h regtllat't 'ns A

.. enerat

aut.horizution for the

sue

oJ ft t f

r thl

RE: Gerome M Moore

f

d

. l

or

tl'l..er information is not su tclen u .

o me tea

.u .

f H

e

The Federal Rules rest.nct any use o us

purpos . ctlte

nv

. aflv investtgate or -

information to cr1mtn

alcohnl

or drug

patient (42

ern.

Pan 2).

Dear Hinds County Youth Court:

Gerome

M. Moore is a 17 year old

male

who

is

currently receiving treatment at our behavioral unit with medication, structured

therapeutic milieu, individual/group therapy,

and

small self-contained classroom for diagnoses listed below:

AXIS I:

AXIS

II:

AXIS

III:

AXIS IV:

AXISV:

Bipolar, unspecified

Conduct Disorder, adolescent onset

Marijuana Dependence, Alcohol Abuse, Ecstasy Abuse

Parent/Child Relational Problem

none

numerous dental caries, STD treated

Psychological Stressors: chaotic

home,

death ofprima1y caretaker, incarceration of family

members, association with delinquent peers, legal involvement, academic failure,

Mom

was

16

years old when pregnant with Gerome. Severity: extreme

GAF:50

Gerome's treatment team recommends intensive outpatient treatment

in

the fonn

of

MYP

AC

services for both Gerome

and

his

family in order to address identified problems, consolidate gains, and continue with his progress. Gerome reports his goals are

to

obtain

aGED and

become

a chef. ln order

to work on

GED,

Gerome

will need

to work

in short segments of

10-15

minutes then

engage in physical activity for (he prefers basketball)

and

continue with alternating schedule for 2-3 hours initially

with

increase

as

directed by educational staff. t is also important that he

engage

in activities which boost

his

self-esteem

as

academics may not provide this initially. He has

had

numerous stressors

in

his

life

and

will need

a mentor

who

will help him

work towards his goals and

to

help him say no to substances ofabuse and delinquent peers.

Compliance

with

medications and

therapy reviewed

with

client and

family.

Gerome reports understanding the trajectory

if

past behaviors continue and

reports

a desire to change.

Sincerely,

Maria Scarbrough, MD

Child andAdolescent Psychiatrist

A F CIUTY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH

ACCREDITED

BY

THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS



5/13

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI F

I L

E D

GEROME MOORE

JUN

15 2 16

: ZACK WALLACE CIRCUIT

CLERK

L

n c

Y

CAUSE NO.lS 0 176

s

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR MENTAL EVALUATION

THIS COURT, having heard and considered the Defendant's Motion

for

Mental

Evaluation,

and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds that the motion

is

not well-taken and should be DENIED, based on the following:

On February 19, 2015, Gerome Moore was indicted for one count of capital murder by

the Hinds County Grand Jury in cause number 15-0-176 and for one, unrelated count

of

armed

carjacking in cause number 15-0-178. He was arraigned in cause numbers 15-0-176 and 15-0-

178 on March 16, 2015, and Aafram Sellers was subsequently appointed to represent the

defendant in this cause

of

action. On February 10,2016, an order was executed by the

undersigned continuing the trial in cause number 15-0-176 to the week of June

6,

2016.

On September 24, 2015, the defendant was indicted by the Hinds County Grand Jury for

one count

of

felony malicious mischief and one count

of

escape in cause number 15-0-897. He

was arraigned on October 28, 2015, and Mr. Sellers was also appointed to represent the

defendant on these charges. On January 27, 2016, an order was executed by the undersigned

setting the trial in cause number 15-0-897 for the week

of

June 6, 2016, however, upon

agreement of counsel, cause number 15-0-897 proceeded to trial during the week of May 16,

1



6/13

2016. The defendant was ultimately found not guilty

of

felony malicious mischief, bu t was

convicted of escape by a jury

of

his peers.

On May 26, 2016, following the trial in cause number 15-0-897, defense counsel filed the

instant Motion

for

Mental Evaluation pursuant to URCCC 9.06 in cause number 15-0-176, which

was scheduled to proceed to trial as a first setting during

on

June 6, 2016. The Court heard the

motion on May 27, 2016, during which time defense counsel argued that a mental examination

was warranted as he had just discovered that the defendant received in-patient, mental health

treatment roughly one month prior to the date

of

incident in cause number 15-0-176 and had

previously been diagnosed with psychological conditions that

may

have affected his mental

capacity at the time of the incident. The undersigned questioned defense counsel about the

defendant's capacity to stand trial, particularly in light

of

the fact that the defendant proceed to

trial in cause number 15-0-897 one week prior to the filing

of

the instant motion, and during that

trial, the defendant was seen conversing with his counsel and further, knowingly and intelligently

waived his right to testify in open court. Defense counsel advised that there was no indication

prior the May 16, 2016, trial that the defendant could not assist with his defense in cause number

15-0-897, and further asserted that the basis

of

the instant motion and the proposed mental

examination would be to assess the

defendant's capacity at the time of the offense-January 7,

2015. The State of Mississippi argued that the motion was untimely and was filed simply to

delay trial in cause number 15-0-176. The State

of

Mississippi supported this argument by

nothing that during his interview with the Jackson Police Department, which was provided to

defense counsel during discovery, the defendant referenced that he took medication for a mental

disorder, therefore his counsel should have been

on

notice of any potential mental health issues

involving his client.

2



7/13

URCCC 9.06 provides that a trial court judge shall order a defendant to submit to a

mental examination if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is incompetent

to stand trial and the determination of such is within the discretion of the trial court. Parker v

State,

30 So.3d 1222, 1230 (Miss. 2010). The test for competency to stand trial and thereby

whether reasonable grounds exist is 'whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to

consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree

of

rational understanding and has a rational as

well as factual understanding ofthe proceedings against him. '

d.,

quoting Dunn v State, 693

So.2d 1333, 1340 (Miss. 1970) and Godinez v Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993). On review, the

pertinent question is whether 'the trial judge received information which, objectively considered,

should reasonably have raised a doubt about the defendant's competence and alerted him to the

possibility that the defendant could neither understand the proceedings, appreciate their

significance, nor rationally aid his attorney in his defense. Harden

v

State, 59 So.3d 594, 602

(Miss. 2011 ). Based on the information presented to the trial court, as well the personal

observation of the defendant, the Court cannot find that a mental examination is warranted at this

time under URCCC 9.06. As discussed supra, the defendant proceeded to trial in front of the

undersigned one week prior to the filing

of

the instant motion, during which time the

undersigned observed the defendant consult with defense counsel and knowingly and

intelligently waive his right to testify at trial. Additionally throughout the trial, the defendant

appeared attentive and well-groomed. Although the instant motion was filed pursuant to

URCCC 9.06, no argument has been made by defense counsel that the defendant is incompetent

to stand trial in cause number 15-0-176 nor was incompetent to stand trial during the week of

May 16, 2016 in cause number 15-0-897.

3



8/13

Additionally, the mental health record submitted to the trial court does not substantiate

any reasonable grounds indicating that the defendant may currently be incompetent to stand trial.

The only medical record submitted to the trial court for review was a one page report from the

Mississippi State Hospital, dated December 3, 2014, which was attached as Exhibit A to the

instant motion. No recent mental health records nor any records from the Hinds County

Detention Center

1

were submitted to this Court for consideration with the instant motion.

At this time, no information or evidence has been produced to indicate that reasonable

grounds exist which raise a doubt about the defendant's competency to stand trial and his ability

to assist his attorney and aid in his own defense, therefore this Court cannot order a mental

examination pursuant to URCCC 9.06. As defense counsel has questioned the defendant's

mental capacity at time of the offense in cause number 15-0-176, which indicates that he may be

seeking a defense of insanity, this issue is governed by URCCC 9.07, a different rule of court.

2

Accordingly, the denial of the instant motion for mental examination under URCCC 9.06 shall

not preclude defense counsel seeking a defense of insanity under URCCC 9.07, should he choose

to do so, or from filing motions or seeking expert assistance with this or any defense that he may

choose to assert at trial.

IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant's

Motion for Mental Examination, pursuant to URCCC 9.06, be and the same hereby is DENIED.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 13

1

h

day

of

June, 2016.

1

The Defendant has been incarcerated at the Hinds County Detention Center since January, 2015.

2

The Court notes that at this time, written notice of the intent to offer a defense of insanity has not been filed with

the Clerk, which

is

a requirement under URCCC 9.07.

4



9/13



10/13



11/13



12/13

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI


VS CAUSE NO. 15-0-176 JAW

GEROME MOORE

BRIEF RESPONSE TO QUESTION ARISING AS TO INTERROGATION

OF DEFENDANT, GEROME MOORE

COMES NOW, the State of Mississippi, and responds specifically to the issue of the

circumstances surrounding the signing of the Rights Waiver Form in the above styled and

numbered cause. This response does not address the merits of the Defendants Motion to

Suppress any and all statements made. Those issues will be addressed at a Motion to Suppress

Hearing scheduled for May 11, 2016.

Gerome Moore was arrested on January 13, 2015 and brought to the Jackson Police

Department to be questioned. There is a video with audio of the interrogation. The interview

was done by Detectives Jermaine Magee and Rozzario Camel. They appear in the video the

entire time. The video depicts the suspect, Gerome Moore, being advised of his Miranda rights

prior to the beginning of any statements or admissions. As each of his constitutional rights are

made known to him, he is asked to initial on a waiver form in an effort to demonstrate that he

was informed of his rights. Gerome Moore signs his name under the specific rights that he was

given.

Below this is a paragraph which is gone over with Moore as well. This paragraph is

where a suspect waives his rights and agrees to talk with law enforcement. Moore is advised of

this in the video and acknowledges that he understands by signing the waiver form. The waiver

of his rights is now complete.



13/13

What became an issue is that a Detective Daryl Owens name appears on the Rights

Waiver form where an interrogator normally would sign as a witness that the suspect was given

his rights and waived them. For this reason, the State asked Detective Owens and Detective Ella

Thomas, who also worked this case, whether either or both of them interrogated Gerome Moore

after his arrest. These detectives did not interrogate Moore as best they can recall. There are no

other video tapes wherein these detectives pursued a separate interrogation. A true and correct

copy of the Right Waiver Form is attached hereto.

Respectfully submitted


/s/ Randy Harris


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Randy Harris, do hereby certify that I have this day filed this Response through the

MEC which sent a true and correct copy to Hon. Aafram Sellers at [email protected].

This is May 10, 2016.

/s/ Randy Harris


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected].

Gerome Moore Merged File

Documents

Transcript of Gerome Moore Merged File