Natasha Moodie — Direct
84 linesJUDGE NEWMAN: Anything before the jury comes?
MR. WATERS: Beg the Court's indulgence for one moment.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, we're attempting to resolve -- this shouldn't be a complicated issue but Mr. Waters and I are dealing with a complicated issue. I apologize.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, Mr. Waters and I have agreed, with some consternation on his part, to this charge. And, of course, obviously this is a suggestion to you; we're just suggesting to you. Obviously you have the authority to modify --
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Mr. Waters?
MR. WATERS: I mean, certainly, Your Honor, I don't know if Your Honor has another instruction that you prefer, you know. I probably would do the language just a little different in that particular one, but I think fundamentally the principles are accurate. I do think that the next to the last sentence is superfluous because that's already said, but I think that's fine. In the end, I don't think there's too much that we have an issue with that particular charge.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And, Your Honor, one matter -- other matter before we bring the jury in, if you want me to do it now?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: The State intends on introducing through -- Is it this witness or another witness? There's a GSR person, a specific GSR person?
MR. WATERS: That's correct. It will be the witness after this one.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Evidence of GSR, gunshot residue on that blue jacket. We would object to any such testimony. Under a 403 analysis, the prejudice outweighs the probative, and I'm struggling to find out and figure out what the probative is. I think it's factually driven, and I think the State needs to give you some sense of what it proves. The jacket, I might point out, no one has put in the hands of the defendant. And the tarp that they found, they never tested for GSR, blood, DNA, and everyone says tarp. That's a jacket, and I don't know how you connect it to the defendant. If the prejudice far outweighs any probative value and it's not been connected to him, even circumstantially not connected to him -- the only witness to it is Ms. Shelley. I talked to her a couple of times. Indicated that was not what he had in his hands, and she's never seen it before and never seen it with him. So, Your Honor, we would object under a 403 analysis.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Yes, Your Honor. I think if you listened to the testimony of Ms. Smith in totality, first of all she identified a picture where she said, yeah, that looks like what it was. It was balled up. And that picture, of course, was then identified by Ms. Moore as where they recovered the actual raincoat, which, of course, she was -- is a very, very large raincoat and very easily could be identified as a tarp. I think any issues that Mr. Harpootlian wants to make he could certainly argue those to the jury, but the connection has been established between Ms. Smith and that particular raincoat in looking at the picture and saying that's -- yeah, that looks like what I saw. Additionally with that other tarp, she also testified that there was no silver on that tarp. And if you look at the picture of that other tarp, it's half blue and half silver, so it's a very --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Which other tarp?
MR. WATERS: There was -- I think -- and I would have to go find the exhibit. Stand by for me real quick, Your Honor.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: So, Your Honor, I can put them up on the ELMO or hand them up, whichever you prefer. But we have State's Exhibit 224, and this was a tarp you can see with a lot of silver on it. But State's Exhibit 411, Ms. Smith identified as that's what it looked like. You can see that balled up thing right there, and that is ultimately the rain jacket, which, as you saw, particularly on redirect with Ms. Goude, you know, this is extremely large. Very easily could look like a tarp, and when she balled it up, Ms. Smith said, yeah, that's what it looked like. So, I think there's been enough of a nexus established as to the probative value. And what you will, of course, hear is, is that -- from the GSR experts is that very high levels of GSR were found within the inside, the inside of that blue rain jacket, which again is this big and very, very long -- again, Mr. Harpootlian can argue to the jury whatever inferences he wants to, but I think the State has established enough of a nexus to not only make it relevant, but to make its probative value not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, I would note that I think he either misunderstood or is misquoting what Ms. Smith said. She said -- she was shown that photo. She said it's the same color or like the same color. She never ever, ever said that's what I saw him with as he came through the door. He put -- and by the way, she found the tarp. That couldn't be the tarp because the tarp was found downstairs across a chair, which is what she said he walked in with, so the tarp in the box obviously isn't it. And, I mean, she said the tarp that he came in with was the one that was on the chair when he came down, not the coat. All she ever said was that blue coat, that balled up appears to be the same color. No one has ever said that she saw him, or anybody saw him with that jacket. And I would also point out that -- I hate to say this, but I would suspect there are a number of rain jackets in this area of the state that have GSR on them, in them, around them. So, there's no one that says he had possession. All she ever said was -- and, by the way, it was all balled up. All she said was it looks like the same color. And she saw a picture of the rain jacket and that is not what he was carrying when he came in.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, the item is in evidence. The witness testified as to the location of the item of evidence and where she believed that it was placed by the defendant. It's in evidence. Obviously the State contends that it has some inculpatory evidence on it. This is a circumstantial case and circumstantially proof can, may be offered from that on the issue of whether or not the gunshot residue, or whatever it might be, can be traced to the defendant. And I overrule the objection and find it's -- the evidence offered is more probative than prejudicial, though I do not believe a probative versus prejudicial analysis is required on this issue, but to the extent that it is, I find that it's more probative than prejudicial and I deny the motion to prevent the State from offering testimony.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Respectfully, Your Honor, we except to Your Honor's ruling.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir. Bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you. The next witness, State's next witness.
MR. JAMES: Johnny James for the State. The State calls Natasha Moodie.
The witness, NATASHA MOODIE, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: Take a seat in the witness stand. State your name again for the record and spell your last name.
NATASHA MOODIE: My name is Natasha Moodie. Last name M-o-o-d-i-e.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. JAMES:
MR. JAMES: I had spelled it wrong on my paper, I'm sorry. Ms. Moodie, where are you from?
NATASHA MOODIE: Jacksonville Florida.
MR. JAMES: Where do you work?
NATASHA MOODIE: Bank of America, NA
MR. JAMES: What do you do for Bank of America, NA?
NATASHA MOODIE: I'm a consumer resolution associate.
MR. JAMES: And what does a consumer resolution associate do?
NATASHA MOODIE: I manage a portfolio for litigate matters. I appear on behalf of the bank for trials, depositions, mediation, and I also review our business records on a daily base.
MR. JAMES: And your business records, were you asked to review business records for Bank of America, NA, in relation to this case?
NATASHA MOODIE: I did.
MR. JAMES: I'm showing you three items labeled for identification as State's Exhibits 415, 416, and 417. Do you recognize these items?
NATASHA MOODIE: I do.
MR. JAMES: And how do you recognize them?
NATASHA MOODIE: I reviewed them, and I also initialed them.
MR. JAMES: And generally speaking, what are these items?
NATASHA MOODIE: These are documents for this case opening account documents, monthly statements for various accounts, and copies of checks for this account, for various accounts.
MR. JAMES: So, are they bank records?
NATASHA MOODIE: Yes.
MR. JAMES: Your Honor, the State moves to introduce Exhibits 415, 416, and 417 into evidence at this time, my understanding with -- subject to any objections from Your Honor's previous ruling today.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir, Mr. Harpootlian?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, may I confer with Mr. James?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, prior to the admission of these records, I would ask you to give whatever cautionary charge you were going to.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, I'll be happy to. Ladies and gentlemen, evidence, or testimony, is about to be offered that the defendant may have been involved in other criminal activities, and that evidence is not evidence or proof that he committed the offenses charged in the indictments. This testimony has been allowed and is being allowed for the limited purpose of assisting the State in proving motive. You may not consider this evidence for purposes of character of Mr. Murdaugh, nor may you consider this evidence as evidence of his propensity to commit other crimes, or that it is more likely that he committed the crimes with which he is currently on trial. It is being allowed based on the State's representation that it helps explain the defendant's motive to commit the crimes for which he is accused. And you may proceed.
MR. JAMES: Very briefly, Ms. Moodie, we had three discs that are now in evidence, so what information is on that first disc? You indicated it was bank records. Do you have any additional information to describe those bank records?
NATASHA MOODIE: I do, but I don't have the disc in front of me.
MR. JAMES: I'm showing you State's Exhibit labeled 415. What records are on that disc?
NATASHA MOODIE: They are checking account ending -- it involves checking accounts, and I could give you the last four digits of those.
MR. JAMES: If you would, please.
NATASHA MOODIE: Checking account ending in the last four digits is 6779. It has account opening documents for that one. The next one is account ending in 7991, and those are account opening documents for that account. And then checking account ending in 7625, and that's account opening documents for that account, and then also monthly statements and supporting documents for all three accounts.
MR. JAMES: Thank you. Now showing you State's Exhibit 416, what's on this disc?
NATASHA MOODIE: These are credit card ending in 9559, and those are monthly statements in that, and account opening application documents.
MR. JAMES: And State's Exhibit 417, what's on that disc?
NATASHA MOODIE: Also another credit card ending in 8591, and these are application of company documents and monthly statements for this account.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, I don't believe these are in evidence, but we would not have any objection to them except as to our previously made objections.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. JAMES: The State moves to admit these three exhibits.
JUDGE NEWMAN: They are admitted.
(DISC WITH BANK RECORDS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 415 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(DISC WITH BANK RECORDS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 416 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(DISC WITH BANK RECORDS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 417 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. JAMES: No further questions for this witness, Your Honor.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No questions.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you, Ms. Moodie?
NATASHA MOODIE: Moodie.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Moodie. You may step down and you're excused.
NATASHA MOODIE: Thank you.
(The witness exited the stand.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may call your next witness.
MR. MEADORS: May it please Your Honor?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes.