Michael Greene a/k/a Michael Javonne Greene a/k/a Michael Green v. State of Mississippi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2024-KA-00333-COA

MICHAEL GREENE A/K/A MICHAEL APPELLANT
JAVONNE GREENE A/K/A MICHAEL GREEN

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/2024
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ADRIENNE ANNETT HOOPER-
WOOTEN
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BY: HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS
MICHAEL GREENE (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JULIANNE KAY BAILEY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: JODY EDWARD OWENS II
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 04/14/2026
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., EMFINGER AND WEDDLE, JJ.

WEDDLE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A Hinds County Circuit Court jury convicted Michael Greene1 of one count of capital

murder for the death of Steven Woods and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

The Hinds County Circuit Court sentenced Greene to life imprisonment in the custody of the

Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) for capital murder and to a concurrent term

1
Although the record reflects alternate spellings for Greene’s last name, we use the
spelling that Greene provided during his trial testimony on direct examination.
of ten years for possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal from his convictions and

sentences, Greene (through a pro se supplemental brief) and his appellate attorney raise

numerous issues. Upon review, we find dispositive the argument that the circuit court erred

by failing to give the jury a cautionary instruction on accomplice testimony. Based on this

error, we reverse Greene’s convictions and sentences and remand the matter for a new trial.

In so doing, we decline to address Greene’s remaining arguments on appeal.

FACTS

¶2. On November 18, 2021, Officer Edward Smith with the Jackson Police Department

responded to a reported shooting in the parking lot of a Rally’s. Upon arriving at Rally’s,

Officer Smith found Demesha Matlock applying pressure to the neck of her boyfriend,

Steven Woods. Woods, who was in the driver’s seat of his Honda Accord, had sustained a

single gunshot wound and was later pronounced dead at the scene.

¶3. Matlock eventually admitted to the officers that she and Woods had stopped at Rally’s

so Woods could sell someone marijuana. Upon arriving at Rally’s, Woods parked next to

a Dodge Charger. Woods instructed Matlock to move to the Accord’s back seat, and she

complied. Woods then made a phone call and informed the person who answered that he

(Woods) had arrived at Rally’s. An unknown man exited the Charger and climbed into the

front passenger seat of Woods’s Accord.

¶4. Matlock stated that the stranger pulled out a black Glock and demanded money from

her and Woods. According to Matlock, Woods was trying to reach for his own handgun

when she heard a gunshot. Matlock testified that the unknown man grabbed a bag of

2
marijuana by Woods’s feet and exited the Accord. Matlock saw the assailant get into the

backseat of the waiting Charger. She testified that the man struggled to get inside the

Charger because items appeared to be falling out the open door onto the parking lot. Matlock

climbed back into the front passenger seat of the Accord, retrieved her own handgun from

her purse, and fired several shots at Woods’s shooter. She then began applying pressure to

the bullet wound in Woods’s neck and called 911.

¶5. Matlock later testified at trial that she met with Detective Terrence Jackson of the

Jackson Police Department about three times after Woods’s shooting. In each interview,

Matlock consistently described Woods’s shooter as skinny, tall, and dark skinned. At trial,

Matlock testified that the shooter also wore a black jacket and had either a hat or mask rolled

up above his eyebrows to his hairline. In addition, Matlock stated that the shooter had tattoos

by his eyes. Although she could not recall during which of her meetings with Detective

Jackson she had first mentioned the shooter’s facial tattoos, Matlock insisted during her trial

testimony that she had informed Detective Jackson about the shooter’s tattoos.

¶6. At no point during her trial testimony did Matlock identify Greene, the defendant, as

Woods’s shooter. Matlock testified that in April 2022, during her third visit with law

enforcement, Detective Jackson showed her a lineup with six photographs. Greene’s

photograph was not included in the lineup. Instead, Matlock circled the photograph of a man

named Jarrick Sumrell, who had tattoos to the sides of his eyes on his cheekbones. Matlock

told Detective Jackson that she thought Sumrell could have been Woods’s shooter.

¶7. At trial, Matlock admitted that prior to the April 2022 photograph lineup, Woods’s

3
mother had sent her photographs of various people, including Sumrell, to see if Matlock

might recognize one of the men as Woods’s shooter. Matlock clarified, however, that she

never felt pressured to identify Sumrell as Woods’s shooter. In response to questions asked

at trial, Matlock agreed that all the windows of Woods’s Accord, including the front

windshield, were tinted and that it was almost dark outside when she and Woods arrived at

Rally’s. Matlock further agreed that Woods’s shooter was cast in a shadow when he climbed

into the Accord.

¶8. Following the report of Woods’s shooting, officers searched the area and discovered

a bag of marijuana, a pair of white shorts, and a single tennis shoe in the Rally’s parking lot

near Woods’s vehicle. Further investigation revealed a .9mm Luger shell casing and

projectile fragment on the backseat floorboard of Woods’s Accord, as well as a .380-caliber

Taurus handgun on the front passenger side floorboard between the seat and the door.

Matlock later confirmed to officers that she owned the Taurus handgun, which she admitted

to firing at Woods’s shooter as the man fled toward the Charger.

¶9. Officers also reviewed Rally’s video surveillance footage recorded at the time of the

shooting. The surveillance footage showed the Charger, which officers later learned was

owned by Gregory Beales, pull into the Rally’s parking lot. A few minutes later, Woods’s

Accord parked beside the Charger. A man wearing a black jacket and jeans exited the

Charger and got into the Accord. The Charger then backed out of its parking spot and

stopped. The man in the black jacket and jeans exited Woods’s Accord and climbed into the

backseat of the Charger. The Charger then drove away from the scene.

4
¶10. During their investigation, officers received information that pointed to Beales; his

cousin, Sumrell; Greene; and Pierre Alexander as potential suspects involved in Woods’s

shooting. Detective Jackson testified that he questioned Sumrell, who stated that he was not

present when Woods was shot. Sumrell claimed, however, to have knowledge of the

shooting from Beales. Sumrell stated that Beales had been inside the Charger with

Alexander and Greene when Woods was shot. Sumrell claimed Beales had said that

Alexander and Greene had shot Woods. Detective Jackson showed Sumrell a lineup

containing Greene’s photograph. Sumrell circled Greene’s photograph and wrote, “This is

the guy my cousin [(Beales)] said shot Steve [Woods].” Despite Sumrell’s claims that he had

no involvement in Woods’s shooting, Detective Jackson testified that Sumrell remained a

suspect in the investigation.

¶11. Based on Sumrell’s information, Detective Jackson located and questioned Beales.

Although Beales did not testify at trial, Detective Jackson informed the jury what he had

learned from Beales during the course of his investigation. Beales admitted that he owned

the Charger involved in Woods’s shooting, but he denied being inside the vehicle at the time

of the shooting. Detective Jackson testified that Beales instead stated that he (Beales) had

loaned the Charger to Alexander and Greene. Beales told Detective Jackson that he had been

told that Greene shot Woods. Detective Jackson showed Beales a lineup containing

Sumrell’s photograph. The photograph lineup was admitted into evidence at trial. On the

lineup, Beales circled Sumrell’s photograph and wrote, “He has nothing to do with it. He

was not there.”

5
¶12. Detective Jackson testified that he then interviewed Alexander. Alexander informed

Detective Jackson that he was hanging out with Beales, Sumrell, and Greene on the day of

Woods’s shooting. Alexander stated that the men ran out of marijuana, and Beales called

Woods to schedule a time to buy more marijuana. According to Alexander, when they

arrived to meet Woods, Greene exited Beales’s Charger and walked over to Woods’s Accord.

Alexander told Detective Jackson that he heard a “pop,” but Alexander never claimed that

he actually saw Greene shoot Woods. In addition, Alexander never told Detective Jackson

that he saw a gun in Greene’s possession. Alexander stated that Greene ran back to Beales’s

Charger “with a large amount of marijuana,” and Beales drove to another location.

According to Alexander, the four men then divided the marijuana they had obtained from

Woods.

¶13. Detective Jackson showed Alexander two different photograph lineups. The first

lineup contained Greene’s photograph, and the second lineup contained Sumrell’s

photograph. Alexander circled Greene’s photograph and wrote, “[H]e’s the robber.” In the

second lineup, Alexander circled Sumrell’s photograph and wrote, “[H]e was present inside

[the] veh[ic]le.”

¶14. Although he reviewed the Rally’s surveillance footage multiple times, Detective

Jackson testified that from the footage, he was unable to identify the man who exited

Beales’s Charger and got into Woods’s Accord. Even though Detective Jackson stated that

Beales, Sumrell, and Alexander had indicated that Greene shot Woods, he acknowledged that

Matlock had identified Sumrell as the shooter when he showed her the photograph lineup.

6
Based on the results of the investigation, Beales, Sumrell, Alexander, and Greene were all

charged with capital murder in connection with Woods’s shooting. Detective Jackson

testified that Greene was also later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.

¶15. Alexander testified that on the day of the shooting, he was visiting his mother.

Alexander saw Beales at another house nearby, and Alexander asked if Beales had any

marijuana that he (Alexander) could buy. Beales stated that he did not have any marijuana

but that he was about to go purchase some marijuana from a third party. Alexander testified

that he decided to ride with Beales in his Charger to also buy some marijuana. When

Alexander got into Beales’s Charger, he noted that the vehicle was filled with piles of

clothing, shoes, and other items.

¶16. Alexander testified that Greene and another guy were also in the Charger with him

and Beales. Alexander stated that Beales identified the fourth man as his cousin, Sumrell.

Alexander claimed at trial, however, that he had just learned Beales had lied to him about the

fourth man’s identity and that the man was actually named “Matthew.” According to

Alexander, he had seen Sumrell in the hallway just before testifying. Alexander stated that

Sumrell said Beales had lied and that “it wasn’t him [(Sumrell)]” in the Charger on the day

of Woods’s shooting.

¶17. Alexander stated that on the day of the shooting, Beales drove everyone to Rally’s in

Jackson. After arriving at Rally’s, Beales made a phone call and let the seller know they had

arrived. Alexander testified that Greene, who was wearing a black jacket, got out of Beales’s

Charger and walked over to another vehicle. Alexander stated that Greene was holding some

7
money that Beales had given him to purchase the marijuana. Alexander once again

confirmed that he never saw a gun in Greene’s possession. Moreover, in contrast to

Detective Jackson’s earlier testimony, Alexander stated during cross-examination that he

never heard a gunshot.

¶18. Alexander testified that while Greene was inside the seller’s vehicle, Beales backed

out of his parking spot and then waited for Greene to return. Once Greene returned, Beales

drove away. After receiving his portion of the marijuana, Alexander left the other men. He

testified that he did not know anyone had been shot. According to Alexander, he only

learned about the shooting when other people later mentioned that they had heard about the

incident on the news.

¶19. During Alexander’s testimony, the defense entered into evidence the two photograph

lineups in which he had identified Greene as “the robber” and Sumrell as another person

inside Beales’s Charger at the time of the shooting. Alexander acknowledged at trial that like

Greene, he had been charged with capital murder for Woods’s death. At the time of Greene’s

trial, Alexander’s capital-murder charge was still pending, and he was awaiting his own trial

on the charge.

¶20. During Greene’s trial, the State informed the circuit court that Sumrell intended to

testify about newly disclosed information. Specifically, Sumrell planned to testify that

Greene had recently made a jailhouse confession to him regarding Woods’s shooting. Over

the defense’s objection, the circuit court allowed Sumrell to testify about the newly disclosed

information.

8
¶21. On direct examination, Sumrell acknowledged that he had also been charged with

capital murder in relation to Woods’s death, and he stated that he had not been offered

anything in exchange for his trial testimony. Sumrell testified that after being arrested in

connection with the shooting, he spoke with Detective Jackson and denied any involvement.

Sumrell stated he told Detective Jackson that he had heard about the shooting from his

cousin, Beales. Sumrell further stated that Beales, along with Alexander and Greene, had

been the ones involved in Woods’s shooting. Sumrell testified that he later learned Matthew

Taylor had also been present when Woods was shot.

¶22. Sumrell also testified that after his arrest, he and Greene “were housed together [i]n

[the same] lockdown unit . . . .” Sumrell stated that during that time, Greene admitted to

robbing Woods for money and marijuana. According to Sumrell, Greene said that Beales and

Alexander were looking for someone to rob Woods. Greene stated that he agreed to commit

the robbery. Sumrell testified that Greene confessed he had not meant to shoot Woods in the

neck and kill him. Sumrell stated that Greene instead intended to shoot Woods in the arm

because he thought Woods was trying to reach for a gun. Sumrell also stated that he and

Greene had discussed Greene’s upcoming trial. Sumrell testified that Greene admitted to

asking his wife to lie for him and to say that they were together at the time of Woods’s

shooting. Sumrell stated that Greene and his wife had fake text messages and photographs

with fake time stamps that they planned to use to create an alibi for Greene.

¶23. Following Sumrell’s direct examination, the circuit court recessed. When the trial

resumed the next day, Greene’s attorney informed the circuit judge about an email the State

9
had sent him the previous afternoon regarding an agreement the State had reached with

Sumrell. The copy of the agreement provided to Greene’s attorney was unsigned, and the

document had not yet become public record. As a result, the defense asked the circuit judge

to take judicial notice of the agreement as an official document from the District Attorney’s

Office and to allow Greene’s attorney to enter the agreement into evidence. The agreement

provided that the State now had reason to believe Sumrell was not involved in Woods’s

murder. As a result, in exchange for Sumrell’s truthful testimony at Greene’s trial consistent

with his prior statements, the State agreed to dismiss all charges against Sumrell, regardless

of the outcome of Greene’s trial.

¶24. After hearing argument on the matter, the circuit judge denied the defense’s request

to take judicial notice of the agreement. The circuit judge instead stated the issue was one

for the defense to address on cross-examination. On cross-examination, Greene’s attorney

asked Sumrell about his tattoos, which were on either side of his eyes along his cheekbones.

Greene’s attorney also asked Sumrell about the photograph lineup that Detective Jackson had

shown Sumrell following his arrest. The lineup contained Greene’s photograph. Sumrell

testified that he had circled Greene’s photograph and written, “This is the guy my cousin

[(Beales)] said shot Steve [Woods].”

¶25. Sumrell denied having entered into any agreement with the State regarding his capital-

murder charge and his testimony at Greene’s trial. When Greene’s attorney handed Sumrell

the agreement, Sumrell acknowledged that he had previously seen the document. Sumrell

stated, however, that he did not understand what the document meant, and he denied that

10
anyone had spoken with him about the dismissal of the charges against him. Because the

agreement was unsigned by Sumrell, the defense was allowed to have the document marked

for identification purposes, but the document was not entered into evidence.

¶26. Greene testified on his own behalf. Greene stated that he had never previously spent

time with Alexander, Beales, and Sumrell. In addition, Greene stated that he had never

spoken with any of the three men about his case and the charges against him, and he denied

ever making a jailhouse confession to Sumrell. Greene also denied being incarcerated with

Sumrell. On direct examination, Greene admitted that he had previously been convicted of

a felony. He testified that he was released from prison in 2020, and he stated he therefore

was not allowed to possess a firearm. As a result, Greene denied being in possession of a

firearm on the day of Woods’s shooting.

¶27. According to Greene, he was with his wife, Jonecia Greene,2 and their children on the

day of Woods’s shooting. Greene stated that although his wife’s birthday had been on

November 17, 2021, they had not celebrated then because they had taken their children to the

doctor. As a result, he testified that he and his family spent the day celebrating together on

November 18, 2021. Greene stated that he and his wife took their children to a park at the

Ross Barnett Reservoir. Greene testified that they went to the park around noon and did not

return home until that evening.

¶28. On cross-examination, the State entered into evidence four photographs taken by

Greene’s wife, Jonecia. Greene testified that one photograph showed him at the doctor’s

2
Although the record reflects alternate spellings for Jonecia’s first name, we use the
spelling that she provided during her trial testimony on direct examination.

11
office with his family, another photograph showed him and his wife at home, and the

remaining two photographs showed him at the park with his family. In several of the

photographs, Greene wore a combination of a black hat and a black jacket. Although Greene

acknowledged that the black hat and jacket he wore in the photographs resembled the

clothing worn by Woods’s shooter, he maintained that he had nothing to do with the

shooting.

¶29. Like Greene, Jonecia testified that their family had gone to the doctor’s office on her

actual birthday and then celebrated her birthday the following day. Jonecia stated that the

family had arrived at the park at the Ross Barnett Reservoir just before noon and had

remained at the park until around 7 p.m. Jonecia acknowledged that she had taken the four

photographs of Greene admitted into evidence.

¶30. After the defense rested its case-in-chief, the State called Hinds County Sheriff Tyree

Jones as a rebuttal witness. Contrary to Greene’s testimony that he had never been

imprisoned with Sumrell, Sheriff Jones stated that prison records reflected that Greene and

Sumrell had been housed in the same unit in January 2024. Sheriff Jones testified that

Greene and Sumrell would have had plenty of opportunity to interact with one another during

their unit’s recreational hour. Following Sheriff Jones’s testimony, the State finally rested

as well.

¶31. After being instructed by the circuit court, the jury deliberated and found Greene

guilty of both Woods’s capital murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm. For

capital murder, the circuit court sentenced Greene to life imprisonment in MDOC’s custody.

12
For being a felon in possession of a firearm, the circuit court sentenced Greene to serve a

concurrent term of ten years in MDOC’s custody. Greene unsuccessfully moved for a new

trial. Aggrieved, Greene appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶32. Although Greene raises numerous issues in his appellate and pro se supplemental

briefs, we find dispositive his argument that the circuit court erred by refusing a cautionary

jury instruction on accomplice testimony. At trial, the defense proposed jury instruction D-7,

which stated the following:

The Court instructs the jury that the law looks with great suspicion and distrust
on the testimony of an alleged accomplice and requires the jury to weigh [the]
same with great care, caution[,] and suspicion. You should weigh the
testimony from alleged accomplices, and passing on what weight, if any, you
should give the testimony, you should weigh it with great care and caution and
look upon it with distrust and suspicion.

¶33. The State objected to the proposed jury instruction on the basis that no one else

admitted to being an accomplice to the crime. The circuit judge initially granted the request

for the proposed jury instruction but then decided to refuse the instruction. After considering

the State’s argument on the matter, the circuit judge concluded that she could only give the

proposed jury instruction if a witness had actually admitted he was an accomplice. As the

circuit judge noted, however, Alexander, Beales, and Sumrell each denied any involvement

with Woods’s robbery and shooting. Based on each man’s denial that he had participated in

the crime, the circuit judge found there was no evidentiary basis upon which to give a

cautionary instruction regarding accomplice testimony.

¶34. On appeal, Greene argues that the only evidence tying him to Woods’s robbery and

13
the shooting was the accomplice testimonies of Alexander and Sumrell. Greene further

argues that Alexander’s and Sumrell’s testimonies were not corroborated by other trial

evidence. Moreover, Greene asserts that the circuit judge erred by concluding that Alexander

and Sumrell failed to constitute accomplices simply because they did not admit to being

accomplices.

¶35. “[D]efendants are entitled to have instructions on their theory of the case presented

to the jury for which there is foundation in the evidence, even though the evidence might be

weak, insufficient, inconsistent[,] or of doubtful credibility[.]” Jones v. State, 283 So. 3d 64,

72 (¶41) (Miss. 2019). We review a circuit court’s decision to give or refuse jury instructions

for abuse of discretion. Fears v. State, 402 So. 3d 791, 797 (¶32) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025).

¶36. Relevant to Greene’s argument on appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court has

previously held that

the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to convict an
accused[.] This rule is inapplicable in those cases where the testimony is
unreasonable, self-contradictory[,] or substantially impeached. Only slight
corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony is required to sustain a conviction.
The testimony that must be corroborated is the part connecting the defendant
to the crime. If the testimony is not corroborated, a cautionary jury instruction
is required.

Jones v. State, 203 So. 3d 600, 606 (¶11) (Miss. 2016) (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted); see also Williams v. State, 32 So. 3d 486, 491 (¶19) (Miss. 2010) (“In determining

whether a cautionary jury instruction is required, the testimony that must be corroborated is

the testimony tying the defendant on trial to the crime, and it is irrelevant whether other

portions of the accomplice’s testimony are corroborated.”). Moreover, our supreme court has

14
explained “that testifying accomplices cannot corroborate each other sufficiently to obviate

the necessity of a cautionary jury instruction.” Williams, 32 So. 3d at 492 (¶21). Thus, “a

cautionary jury instruction is required even though multiple accomplices testify and may

corroborate each other.” Id.

¶37. “An accomplice is a person who is implicated in the commission of the crime, and if

the evidence gives a reasonable inference that the person may have been a co-perpetrator or

the sole perpetrator, then that person is an accomplice.” Fears, 402 So. 3d at 797 (¶36)

(internal quotation mark omitted). Upon review, we conclude the record contains sufficient

evidence to support finding that Alexander and Sumrell constituted accomplices to Woods’s

robbery and shooting and that their testimonies connecting Greene to the crimes were

uncorroborated. Along with Greene and Beales, both Alexander and Sumrell were indicted

for capital murder in Woods’s death. At the start of Greene’s trial, the charges against

Alexander and Sumrell remained pending. Thus, as Greene asserts in his appellate brief,

admitting at his trial that they were actual accomplices to the crime would have been

detrimental to their own unresolved cases.

¶38. In addition, despite Alexander’s denials that he robbed or shot Woods, he placed

himself and Sumrell at the scene of the crime. Alexander told Detective Jackson that he,

Sumrell, and Greene rode with Beales to meet Woods and purchase marijuana. By his own

admissions before and during trial, Alexander provided “a reasonable inference” that he and

Sumrell were involved in the commission of the crime. Id. Prior to trial, Alexander

identified Sumrell from a photograph lineup and, as discussed, told Detective Jackson that

15
Sumrell was one of the other men inside Beales’s Charger at the time of the shooting.

Moreover, Matlock, who was the only eyewitness to the shooting, also picked out Sumrell

from a photograph lineup and identified him as Woods’s shooter.

¶39. We also conclude from our review of the record that other trial evidence failed to

corroborate the alleged accomplice testimony connecting Greene to Woods’s murder. The

record is devoid of any witness who admitted to being present at the time of Woods’s

shooting and who also affirmatively identified Greene as Woods’s shooter. Even Alexander,

who stated that Greene got into Woods’s Accord, testified at trial that he never saw a gun in

Greene’s possession or heard anything to indicate that a shooting had occurred. And

Matlock, the only other individual actually inside Woods’s Accord, identified Sumrell—not

Greene—as the shooter. Even during her trial testimony, Matlock never identified Greene

as Woods’s shooter.

¶40. The State also presented no ballistics or DNA evidence that linked Greene to the

crime. Even the video footage recovered from Rally’s surveillance cameras, which showed

an individual entering and exiting Woods’s Accord, was insufficient to provide Detective

Jackson with a positive identification of the individual.

¶41. Due to the presence of evidence that implicated Alexander and Sumrell as

accomplices to Woods’s murder, as well as a lack of corroborating evidence to support their

testimonies that Greene committed the crime, we conclude that Greene was entitled to a

cautionary jury instruction on accomplice testimony. Because we find that the circuit court

erred by failing to give such an instruction as Greene requested, we reverse Greene’s

16
convictions and sentences and remand the matter to the circuit court for a new trial.

CONCLUSION

¶42. Based on the reasoning set forth above, we reverse Greene’s convictions and

sentences and remand the matter to the circuit court for a new trial.

¶43. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS,
McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, EMFINGER AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ.,
CONCUR.

17