Case Title: Pittman v. State

Citation: 297 So. 2d 888

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1974-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
297 So. 2d 888 (1974) Lanell PITTMAN v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 47915. Supreme Court of Mississippi. July 15, 1974. *889 Singley & Morgan, Columbia, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gilfoy, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. SUGG, Justice: Lanell Pittman was convicted in the Circuit Court of Marion County for the murder of Enoch Watson and sentenced to serve a life term in the Mississippi State Penitentiary. Pittman's defense was that the homicide was justifiable under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-15(f) (1972) in that he acted in necessary self-defense when he killed Watson. The defendant and Watson had a previous difficulty on October 30, 1971 and as a result the defendant was severely injured requiring his hospitalization for more than a week. Watson was not tried on the indictment. Nineteen defense witnesses testified that the reputation of Watson in the community for peace and violence was "real bad," or that Watson had threatened to kill the defendant. The homicide occurred at a rural store owned by Robert Henry Pittman on the morning of September 7, 1972. Defendant and his father, Bostick Pittman, went into the store of Robert Henry Pittman where Robert Henry Pittman and Otho Forbes were present. While the four men were seated near the rear of the store Watson entered the front door and the store owner made his way to a counter at the front of the store for the purpose of waiting on him. Watson obtained a Coca-Cola from a soft drink machine, returned to the counter and paid for a package of cigarettes that the store owner obtained for him. At this time Watson's back was turned toward the men in the rear of the store and it is at this point that the accounts given by the witnesses vary significantly. Robert Henry Pittman testified that, as he handed Watson his change, the defendant approached from the rear, gun in hand; that the defendant opened fire when he was approximately 4 feet behind Watson who collapsed to the floor with 5 bullet holes in his back. Otho Forbes testified that when Watson entered the store the defendant concealed himself behind a wall. Forbes further testified that the defendant left his position behind the wall and approached Watson from the rear and commenced firing. He further testified that after Watson fell to the floor the defendant fired two or three more shots into Watson's prone body. Neither Forbes nor Robert Henry Pittman saw Watson make any movement with his hands or otherwise that could have provoked the defendant's attack. The defendant testified in his own behalf and stated that he heard a truck approach the store and saw Watson standing outside the store with a sawed-off shotgun. When Watson entered the store he did not have the shotgun. Watson asked for cigarettes, walked to the soft drink machine, and turned around and glared at him. The defendant said that when Watson returned to the counter, he started walking toward the front of the store intending to leave in order to avoid any trouble; that as he approached Watson, Watson "went to his *890 pocket" and the defendant then started shooting. The defendant's father, Bostick Pittman, testified that as he and the defendant were attempting to leave the store Watson "cut his eyes" and "went to his pocket" whereupon the defendant shot him. One of the assignments of error is as follows: The peremptory instruction requested by the defendant was properly refused and the evidence was sufficient to make a jury question on the charge of murder. We therefore hold that this assignment of error is not well taken. Defendant also assigns the following as error: This assignment of error raises questions that occurred at two different times during the trial. The first was on voir dire of the jury and the second during the closing argument. When defendant's attorney was questioning the prospective jurors the following transpired: Defendant contends that the jury was told that the burden of proving self-defense rested on him. His contention, stated differently, is that the burden of proof shifted to him. It is elementary that the burden of proof never shifts from the State in a criminal case. Hosey v. State, 136 Miss. 5, 100 So. 577 (1924); Hampton v. State, 99 Miss. 176, 54 So. 722 (1911) and cases annotated under Criminal Law, Mississippi Digest. The distinction between the burden of proof and the burden of adducing evidence was clearly set forth in Averitt v. State, 246 Miss. 49, 149 So. 2d 320 (1963) where the Court stated: In Reddix v. State, 134 Miss. 393, 98 So. 850 (1924) we stated: When the defendant made a motion for a mistrial following the statement of the district attorney quoted above, no proof had been offered. At that time the court did not know what evidence might be offered, and could not know that self-defense might arise from the evidence offered by the state or from a lack of evidence; therefore, the court properly overruled the motion for mistrial. The second part of this assignment of error is covered by paragraph one of the bill of exceptions which is as follows: A different situation arose on the bill of exceptions when, after all the proof was in, the court stated that it was not a burden on the State to prove. This was error but the error was not preserved because the defendant's attorney did not object to the statement, did not object to the court's ruling and did not make a motion for a mistrial at this time. Contemporaneous objection is necessary to preserve the right to raise a point on appeal. Myers v. State, 268 So. 2d 353 (Miss. 1972). Defendant assigns as error the following instruction which was given for the State: This instruction was approved in Joseph v. State, 218 So. 2d 734 (Miss. 1969); however, a similar instruction was considered in McDonald v. State, 78 Miss. 369, 29 So. 171 (1901). The instruction was as follows: This Court held that it was error to grant the instruction for the following reasons: In Ellis v. State, 108 Miss. 62, 66 So. 323 (1914) the State, in a murder case, obtained the following instruction: *893 With reference to the instruction the Court stated: After mature consideration we have determined that the instruction in the case at bar is erroneous in the form in which it was given and we expressly overrule our holding in Joseph v. State and all other cases holding to the same effect. We find the reasoning in McDonald and Ellis compelling. The vice of the instruction is that it requires the jury to convict the defendant of murder if it finds that premeditation or deliberate design to kill the deceased existed at the time the killing occurred. The instruction fails to inform the jury that there are instances in which a deliberate design to kill may exist at the moment the fatal blow was struck and yet the homicide may be justifiable or excusable. Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-15 (1972) lists eight situations under which homicide is justifiable, and Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-17 lists three situations under which homicide is excusable. In addition thereto, the deliberate design to kill might exist and the killing be manslaughter. This instruction pared away the rights of the defendant and required the jury to find him guilty of murder even though the killing might have been justifiable by reason of self-defense. One may have a deliberate design to kill and yet not be guilty of murder. It is argued that the instruction is not erroneous when it is read with the instructions obtained by the defendant setting forth clearly his theory of self-defense. With this argument we cannot agree. The fallacy in that argument is that all the instructions cannot be read together and make a consistent whole. The instruction under consideration is in irreconcilable conflict with other instructions. The defendant's self-defense instructions did not cure the error because they are in hopeless conflict with the last clause of this instruction. Hudson v. State, 295 So. 2d 766 (Miss. 1974); Butler v. State, 177 Miss. 91, 170 So. 148 (1936). Instructions should be given only if they are applicable to the facts developed in the case being tried. Since every killing of a human being is murder unless facts are shown which would make the homicide justifiable, excusable or reduce it to manslaughter, instructions dealing with "deliberate design" should take into consideration and be limited by the facts developed by the evidence. If there are facts which, if believed by the jury, would make the homicide justifiable or excusable or reduce it to manslaughter, the instruction should be qualified to take these facts into consideration. For an example of an instruction in a murder case where self-defense was claimed see Peterson v. State, 242 So. 2d 420 (Miss. 1970).[1] *894 We hold that it was error to give Instruction No. 5 for the State. We find no merit in the other assignments of error. Reversed and remanded. All Justices concur except BROOM, J., who took no part. [1] The appellant argues that Instruction Number 2 granted the State is erroneous. This instruction is as follows: The Court instructs the jury for the State that the malice aforethought mentioned in the indictment does not have to exist in the mind of the slayer for any given length of time; and if at the very moment of the act of violence, if any, the defendant, Fred Peterson, acted with the deliberate design to take the life of Henry Lee Bond, and not in necessary self-defense, real or apparent, then it was as truly malice and the act was as truly murder as if the deliberate design had existed in the mind of the defendant for minutes, hours, days, weeks, or even years. This instruction in one form or another, has been approved by this Court for many years. See Lambeth v. State, 23 Miss. 322, supra: Mills v. State, 196 Miss. 287, 17 So. 2d 215, supra; Durrah v. State, 44 Miss. 789, supra: Carter v. State, 198 Miss. 523, 21 So. 2d 404 (1945); Hudson v. State, 185 Miss. 677, 188 So. 561 (1939); Busby v. State, 177 Miss. 68, 170 So. 140 (1936); Johnson v. State, 140 Miss. 889, 105 So. 742 (1925); Huddleston v. State, 134 Miss. 382, 98 So. 839 (1924). This instruction is to be distinguished from an instruction stating, "if the design to kill exists but for an instant [etc.]" See McDonald v. State, 78 Miss. 369, 29 So. 171 (1900). (242 So.2d at 427). (Emphasis supplied).