IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2025-KA-00596-SCT
JERMAINE WHITE a/k/a DEBOW
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/2025
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WINSTON L. KIDD
TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: JESSICA HEPT BAILEY
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT ROUTH
ANDREW JAMES WILLIAMS
GAIL WRIGHT LOWERY
SUE MILLER PERRY
ANDREKA HOLLINS
TINA LASHELLE HERRON
JODY EDWARD OWENS, II
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES
JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DANIELLE LOVE BURKS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: JODY EDWARD OWENS, II
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/27/2026
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
BEFORE COLEMAN, P.J., ISHEE AND BRANNING, JJ.
BRANNING, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Jermaine White appeals both of his first-degree-murder convictions, arguing that the
jury verdicts, specifically the findings of deliberate design, were not supported by the
evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. On January 23, 2022, Jackson Police Department (JPD) officers responded to a report
of gunshots and two women being held hostage inside a room at the Rainbow Inn Motel.
Upon arrival, the officers found Jermaine White in the motel lobby. Officer Terrinesheya
Dampeer stated that she “observed a black male” wearing a “red-colored hoodie” “exit[]
out of Room 123” before he “went to Room 122 real quickly and came out quickly.” Officer
Dampeer testified that White was “being loud,” “had blood on his hands,” and “was just
jumping up and down.” Additional units arrived, placed White in handcuffs, and took him
into custody. Officer Dampeer testified that when she first saw White, he did not have a gun.
¶3. Inside Room 123, officers discovered two women, Kiara Poole and Samantha Cannon,
who had died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds. Officer Dampeer testified that “the
room was a mess . . . clothes everywhere, furniture flipped over,” and shell casings were on
the floor. A handgun was recovered from inside the room near Samantha Cannon’s body;
however, no firearm was recovered from White’s person.
¶4. Genesis Poole, sister of Kiara Poole, testified that she was on the phone with Kiara
at the time of the shooting. While she was not present in Room 123, she arrived at the
Rainbow Inn after hearing gunshots while on the phone with Kiara. Genesis testified that
when she arrived, she saw White outside of the room with a gun. Genesis also testified that
White was her sister’s boyfriend. Genesis explained to the jury that when she spoke with her
sister, she “could just tell something was wrong.”
2
¶5. During the call, Genesis asked Kiara where she was, and she “was quiet for two
seconds and then [Genesis] just started hearing gunshots.” Genesis stated that she heard her
sister crying, knew she was in pain, and then heard “a lot of gunshots.”
¶6. While she was waiting in the parking lot for the police, Genesis testified that she saw
White pull back the curtain; he “came to the window” with a “gun in his hand.” Later, at the
police station, Genesis identified Jermaine White, also known as “Debow,” as the man who
had been holding the gun at the window, and she identified White in the courtroom as the
same person.
¶7. Surveillance footage from the motel was admitted at trial. Sergeant Jerry Shoulders
testified that the footage showed an individual exiting Room 123 and moving between nearby
rooms before entering the lobby. The footage did not show anyone else entering or exiting
Room 123 during the relevant period. Sergeant Shoulders also testified that he did not
observe a firearm on the individual depicted in the footage.
¶8. JPD Crime Scene Investigator Andrew Harris photographed Room 123 and testified
that there were bodies on the floor, and the room was “in disarray.” Investigator Harris
recovered cocaine, a firearm, and two ammunition magazines, as well as fifteen spent shell
casings from Room 123. Harris testified that the firearm was a 9-millimeter Luger, and it
was found under Cannon’s head; there was no blood around or on the gun. Harris testified
that he also observed blood inside the motel lobby, including on the ground and on the lobby
counter.
3
¶9. Sergeant Kevin Nash testified that Rooms 122 and 123 were not adjoined and that
each room had one door for entry and exit. Sergeant Nash later interviewed White at JPD
headquarters. Nash observed blood on White’s face, shirt, and “all over his hands,” both the
“front and the back.” White did not offer an explanation for how the blood got there.
According to Sergeant Nash, White was able to remember going to the motel, what room
number they were in, what time they arrived, and that he had used cocaine; however, he
could not remember how he got blood on him or how or why Poole and Cannon were killed.
Based on the investigation, Nash concluded that three people were inside Room 123, no other
persons entered the room, and only White left the room alive.
¶10. Dr. Ariane Robinson Adorfer with the state medical examiner’s office performed
Cannon’s and Poole’s autopsies. She testified that Cannon sustained eight gunshot wounds
to her body and that the manner of death was homicide. Dr. Adorfer also testified that at
least one of the shots was fired at close range, and several of the wounds were independently
fatal. Toxicology testing revealed methamphetamine, marijuana, and cocaine in Cannon’s
system.
¶11. Dr. Adorfer also testified that Poole died from multiple gunshot wounds and that the
manner of death was homicide. Poole sustained eleven gunshot wounds. And several of those
wounds were independently fatal. Like Cannon, toxicology testing revealed
methamphetamine, marijuana, and cocaine in Poole’s system. Dr. Adorfer testified that the
drugs present in Poole’s and Cannon’s systems did not contribute to their deaths. Dr. Adorfer
4
added that several of the gunshot wounds could have been inflicted while the women were
on the ground and the shooter was standing over them.
¶12. At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, White moved for a directed verdict, arguing
that the State failed to prove identity, deliberate design, and possession of a firearm. The trial
court denied the motion. White did not testify and presented no witnesses at trial.
¶13. The jury found White guilty on all counts: two counts of first-degree murder and one
count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court entered judgments of
conviction and sentenced White to two life sentences and ten years for the firearms charge,
with all sentences to run consecutively. The trial court denied White’s post-trial motion for
a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. White timely
appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶14. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply a de novo standard of review.
Clark v. State, 315 So. 3d 987, 994 (Miss. 2021) (quoting Sanford v. State, 247 So. 3d 1242,
1244 (Miss. 2018)). As such, the “relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id.
(internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Hearn v. State, 3 So. 3d 722, 740 (Miss. 2008)).
¶15. When reviewing the trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial, we apply an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Eubanks v. State, 341 So. 3d 896, 911 (Miss. 2022) (quoting
Little v. State, 233 So. 3d. 288, 292 (Miss. 2017)). And “[t]he evidence is viewed in the light
5
most favorable to the State.” Clark, 315 So. 3d at 994 (alteration in original) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Henley v. State, 136 So. 3d 413, 415 (Miss. 2014)).
DISCUSSION
¶16. On appeal, White argues that “the jury’s finding of deliberate design is so contrary to
the evidence presented at trial that allowing the first-degree-murder convictions to stand
would sanction an unconscionable injustice.”
¶17. Our law provides that “[t]he killing of a human being without the authority of law .
. . [w]hen done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed . . . shall be
first-degree murder[.]” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(a) (Rev. 2020). We have held that
deliberate design “connotes an intent to kill.” Holliman v. State, 178 So. 3d 689, 698 (Miss.
2015) (citing Wilson v. State, 936 So. 2d 357, 363-64 (Miss. 2006)). And “[u]nless one
expresses his intent, the only method by which intent may be proven is by showing the acts
of the person involved at the time, and by showing the circumstances surrounding the
incident.” Id. at 698 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Boyd
v. State, 977 So. 2d 329, 335 (Miss. 2008)) .
¶18. The jury is allowed “to draw reasonable inferences from facts based on experience
and common sense.” Bowser v. State, 182 So. 3d 425, 430 (Miss. 2015) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Howell v. State, 860 So. 2d 704, 739 (Miss. 2003)). And “the jury
is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses, and the jury’s decision based on conflicting
evidence will not be set aside where there is substantial and believable evidence supporting
6
the verdict.” Id. at 430 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nicholson v. State, 523
So. 2d 68, 70 (Miss. 1988)).
¶19. White argues that the State’s proof failed to establish the requisite deliberate design
because “the record contains no evidence of planning, motive, or forethought preceding the
shootings.” According to White, the physical evidence depicts a chaotic and rapidly
unfolding event rather than a calculated killing.
¶20. He further contends that the medical examiner’s testimony did not establish that the
victims were subjected to execution-style shootings or otherwise demonstrate intent to kill.
White also points to testimony describing his behavior immediately after the incident as
frantic, loud, incoherent, and erratic, arguing that such conduct is inconsistent with the cool,
reflective state of mind ordinarily associated with deliberate design. White maintains that,
based on these circumstances, the jury’s finding of deliberate design was “against the
overwhelming weight of the evidence.”
¶21. Our precedent is clear, however, that “[d]eliberate design to kill a person may be
formed very quickly[.]” Holliman, 178 So. 3d at 698 (internal quotation mark omitted)
(quoting Jones v. State, 154 So. 3d 872, 880 (Miss. 2014)). And deliberate design “may be
inferred from the use of a deadly weapon.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting
Anderson v. State, 79 So. 3d 501, 507 (Miss. 2012)). We have also specifically recognized
that “shooting a victim with a gun constitute[s] deliberate-design murder.” Brown v. State,
965 So. 2d 1023, 1030 (Miss. 2007) (citing Jones v. State, 710 So. 2d 870 (Miss. 1998);
Hawthorne v. State 835 So. 2d 14 (Miss. 2003)).
7
¶22. The record reflects that both victims died of gunshot wounds while in Room 123,
Poole suffering from eleven gunshot wounds and Cannon suffering from eight gunshot
wounds. The investigation revealed that White, Poole, and Cannon entered Room 123, but
only White exited the room alive.
¶23. The medical examiner testified that at least one shot was fired at close range and that
several wounds were consistent with the victims’ having been shot while on the ground.
Investigators recovered two empty ammunition magazines and fifteen spent shell casings
from the hotel room, thus the jury could reasonably infer that White reloaded the gun and
chose to continue shooting at Cannon and Poole until he ran out of ammunition.
¶24. The State argues the fact that “White shot his victims a total of 19 times. . . that each
victim suffered more than one ‘fatal’ wound[] [and that] White repeatedly pulled the trigger,
renewing his decision to kill . . . forecloses any genuine argument that he lacked deliberate
design.” We agree.
¶25. In addition, White argues that the jury was not instructed on any lesser-included
homicide offenses. The record reflects, however, that White successfully objected to the
inclusion of a second-degree-murder instruction. Having prevailed on that objection, White
may not now claim error based on the omission of the very instruction he sought to exclude.
This Court has explained that “[a] defendant cannot object to an elements instruction,
succeed on the objection . . . and then cry error . . . on appeal.” Thomas v. State, 249 So. 3d
331, 349-50 (Miss. 2018). This argument is without merit.
8
¶26. When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it is clear that a
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of first-degree murder beyond
a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we find sufficient evidence supports the convictions and that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying White’s motion for a new trial.
CONCLUSION
¶27. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶28. AFFIRMED.
RANDOLPH, C.J., KING AND COLEMAN, P.JJ., ISHEE, GRIFFIS,
SULLIVAN AND WILSON, JJ., CONCUR.
9