Carla Hughes was having a relationship with Keyon Pittman, who lived with his pregnant fiancée, Avis Banks. When Banks was killed, the affair gave investigators a reason to examine Hughes.
Case brief
Ridgeland, Mississippi · 2006
- Recorded outcome
- Carla Hughes convicted of two capital murders; concurrent life without parole; affirmed 2012
Key moments
People in this case
- Carla Hughes
Convicted of murdering Avis Banks
Photo at source · WAPT · case coverage
It did not answer the case by itself.
The evidence that reached the jury included a borrowed handgun, footwear bearing Banks’s blood and telephone records that placed the two teachers in different coverage areas during the relevant period.
The overlapping relationships
Hughes and Pittman met while teaching at Chastain Middle School in Jackson, Mississippi. Their relationship became sexual in 2006.
According to Pittman’s testimony, Hughes knew that he intended to marry Banks and that Banks was pregnant. He said Hughes nevertheless referred to him as her future husband.
The Mississippi Supreme Court’s opinion [1] recounts disputes between them, including Hughes’s frustration that he would not leave Banks.
November 29, 2006
Pittman coached basketball practice that evening. Before practice, he left groceries at Hughes’s home. He returned to collect them afterward and later drove to the home he shared with Banks in Ridgeland.
Banks did not answer his calls.
When he arrived, he found her in the garage. She had been killed, and her unborn son also died.
Police examined a footwear impression and collected other physical evidence. They also reconstructed movements through witness accounts and telephone records.
Hughes’s defense would later suggest that Pittman was responsible. He was not convicted in this case. The jury instead had to evaluate whether the evidence supported the charges against Hughes.
The weapon and the footwear
A witness testified that he had lent Hughes a loaded .38-caliber handgun and a knife three days before the murders. She returned the gun empty on December 1.
Ballistics evidence connected that handgun to the shooting.
During a search of Hughes’s home, investigators found shoes with a tread pattern corresponding to impressions at the crime scene. DNA testing identified Banks’s blood on the shoes.
Those are different kinds of evidence. A tread pattern does not uniquely identify one pair among all shoes of the same design. Blood associated with the victim on the recovered footwear supplied an additional connection.
The defense pointed out that Pittman had possessed a key to Hughes’s home and acknowledged having worn her shoes. The prosecution responded with evidence about his footwear on the night of the murders and his whereabouts.
The competing arguments required jurors to assess the combination, rather than assume that one item independently explained everything.
What the phone records actually showed
An engineer testified that calls associated with Hughes’s telephone used a tower covering the area around Banks’s home shortly before and after the estimated time of the attack.
That coverage area extended roughly two miles. It was not a GPS location placing Hughes at a precise doorway.
Pittman’s records, by contrast, were associated with coverage around the school and Hughes’s home during the relevant period. Prosecutors argued that the records supported his account while placing Hughes near Banks.
The distinction between a broad coverage area and an exact position is essential. The telephone evidence became persuasive in the prosecution’s account because it was considered alongside the gun, the footwear, the blood and testimony about the relationship.
The first shoe test was negative
The strongest detail in the footwear evidence emerged only after a second examination. The Mississippi Crime Laboratory's initial test did not detect blood. The shoes then returned to police storage. On October 16, 2008, an investigator examining them with an assistant district attorney noticed small spots on the side of a sole. Five days later, the shoes were submitted to Scales Biological Laboratory. That later examination identified Banks's blood. [1]
The two results became a defense issue. Hughes argued that a negative test followed by a positive result suggested tampering, and she challenged irregularities in the evidence packaging. The state supplied a narrower explanation: the first laboratory had tested the tops and upper sides while avoiding areas needed for footwear-impression examination. The later spots were on the side of the sole, in an area not previously tested. The court found no adequate basis to infer probable tampering and rejected the challenge, also addressing the timing of the defense objection. [1]
That history makes the shoes more informative than a simple caption saying “DNA match.” The tread comparison associated a pattern with impressions at the house. The later biological examination associated blood on the shoes with Avis. Neither result was a photograph of the wearer committing the crime; the prosecution connected those findings to possession of the shoes, the weapon evidence and the telephone timeline. [1]
Minutes, rather than a pinpoint on a map
The telephone evidence also had a sequence. Hughes received a call at 5:37 p.m. and made one at 6:04 p.m. within the coverage area of the Ridgeland tower discussed at trial. Her next recorded activity, at 6:07 p.m., was outside that tower's range. The prosecution compared those records with its account of when Avis arrived home and was killed. [1]
The engineer described a coverage radius of approximately two miles. A call using that tower therefore supplied an area and a time, not a precise location inside a particular house. Pittman's records were offered for comparison, placing his calls during the relevant period in coverage associated with the school and Hughes's home. The jury considered that contrast alongside the defense claim that he had access to her house and had sometimes worn her shoes. The case depended on how those lines of evidence fit together. [1]
A verdict and an appeal
In October 2009, the jury convicted Hughes of two counts of capital murder. The court imposed concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without parole.
She appealed on several grounds, including the strength of the evidence, the search of her home and the admission of DNA evidence. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed on June 21, 2012.
The court also addressed a juror question about whether prosecutors could have called Hughes to testify. Her decision not to take the stand was protected and could not be used as evidence of guilt. The trial court directed jurors back to that instruction.
The evidence was larger than the affair
Banks was returning from work to the home she shared with the person she planned to marry. Describing her only as a rival in Hughes’s relationship would repeat the prosecution’s motive theory at the expense of the victim’s own place in the story.
The affair explained why investigators looked at Hughes. The weapon, blood evidence and movements helped explain why the jury convicted her.
That difference is what makes the case worth examining beyond its romantic conflict. The crucial work was connecting a theory of motive to evidence that could be tested in court.
Look closer · 3 visuals
Inside the evidence.
Open a visual to explore what it contributed to the case—and the limits of what it shows. These original illustrations explain the record; they are not photographs of the actual evidence.
The shoes and the second test
Original editorial illustration — not an actual evidence photograph or exhibit.
Read the evidence notes
Testing of a previously untested area on the side of a sole identified Avis’s blood. The court rejected Hughes’s tampering argument.
Illustration only: no actual shoes, blood, tread impression or DNA profile is depicted. A tread pattern alone is not a unique identification.
The weapon link
Original editorial illustration — not an actual evidence photograph or exhibit.
Read the evidence notes
A relative linked Hughes to the borrowed .38 handgun; laboratory testing identified it as the gun that fired the fatal bullets.
This is not the actual firearm or a ballistic comparison image. The jury considered this with the other evidence.
A phone covers an area
Original editorial illustration — not an actual evidence photograph or exhibit.
Read the evidence notes
The records linked calls to a tower with a roughly two-mile coverage radius that included the home.
A cell-site record is not GPS. The graphic deliberately shows no exact tower location or reconstructed route.
★ Key evidence used in a conviction · ✓ Exclusion or reversal · ◇ Disputed evidence · ⊘ Excluded at retrial · ◆ Identity / investigative finding, not a conviction. A symbol does not mean one item proved the whole case.
Follow the locations
Put the story on the map.
Follow the dated entries, then select an event to find its regional setting. Shared-location pins open a group of events. Evidence symbols identify important findings and their limitations.
Open the map in its own window ↗Sources & further reading
Editorial review: 2026-09-29 · 1124 words