..

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW Document #: 20

Filed: 05/26/2016 Page 1 of 4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

I L E D
MAY 26 2016

vs.

GEROME MOORE

PLAINTIFF
Circuit Court No.: 15-176

ZACK WALLACE. CIRCUIT CLERK

DEFENDANT

MOTION FOR MENTAL EVALUATION

COMES NOW, the Defendant, Gerome Moore, by and through counsel, and
respectfully moves this Court, pursuant 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 2 of 4

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.

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW

Document #: 20
VI.

Filed: 05/26/2016

Page 3 of 4

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 Evaluation 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

'

..

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW

Document #: 20

Filed: 05/26/2016

Page 4 of 4

MISSISSIPPI STATE HOSPITAL

P.O. BOX 157-A, WHITFIELD, MS 39193

(601) 351-8000

WWW.MSH.STATE.MS.US

This information has been disclosed to you from

.
. .
has
been
protec.ed.
whose
conftdentta1tty
.
f h .
December 3, 2014
Attention: Hinds County Youth Court

et
Statutes/regulations proh1bit you from malong
d. I . of t't w'Jt"out rite specific written consent o.f the
1sc osure
u

db
Jcrson to whom it perlait;:>. or as otherwtse pcrmttte
y
1: .h regtllat't"'ns A ..,enerat aut.horizution for the
sue

t f u r thl"
information is not su ft''tclen
. ..
. l or tl'l..er
o f me d tea
.u
.
f H
The
Federal
Rules
rest.nct
any
use
o
us
e
purpos"
.
ctlte- ''nv.
.

aflv
investtgate
or

information to cr1mtn "

alcohnl or drug patient (42 ern. Pan 2).
'oJ

RE: Gerome M Moore

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. It 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 of abuse 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 FACIUTY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH

ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW

Document #: 23

Filed: 06/15/2016

Page 1 of 4

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

F I L E D

vs.
GEROME MOORE

JUN 15 2016

CAUSE NO.lS-0-176

: ZACK WALLACE. CIRCUIT CLERK

_______
.n.c.

BYL
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 15-0178 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,

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW

Document #: 23

Filed: 06/15/2016

Page 2 of 4

2016. The defendant was ultimately found not guilty of felony malicious mischief, but 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.

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW

Document #: 23

Filed: 06/15/2016

Page 3 of 4

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.

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW

Document #: 23

Filed: 06/15/2016

Page 4 of 4

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 1h day of June, 2016.

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

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW

Document #: 14

Filed: 04/13/2016

Page 1 of 3

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW

Document #: 14

Filed: 04/13/2016

Page 2 of 3

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW

Document #: 14

Filed: 04/13/2016

Page 3 of 3

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW

Document #: 16

Filed: 05/10/2016

Page 1 of 2

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
STATE OF 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.

Case: 25CI1:15-cr-00176-JAW

Document #: 16

Filed: 05/10/2016

Page 2 of 2

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
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
/s/ Randy Harris
Assistant District Attorney
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 aafram@sellerslawfirm.net.

This is May 10, 2016.

/s/ Randy Harris
Assistant District Attorney