Case Title: Hester v. State

Citation: 602 So. 2d 869

Docket Number: 89-KA-1097

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1992-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
602 So. 2d 869 (1992) Daniel W. HESTER v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 89-KA-1097. Supreme Court of Mississippi. July 8, 1992. *870 Thomas M. Fortner, Jackson, for appellant. Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Deirdre McCrory, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ. SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court: Daniel W. Hester was tried and convicted by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mississippi, for the capital murder of Frederick Jones. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Because the trial court refused to submit the defense theory to the jury, we reverse and remand for a new trial. On the evening of September 10, 1988, Edward Sodl and Frederick Jones, two sailors attached to the U.S.S. Wisconsin, walked on Ingalls Avenue in Pascagoula, Mississippi, en route to The Reb convenience store. The two sailors heard and noticed some guys behind them, looked back momentarily, then kept walking. They heard a shot and then were accosted by two young men who ordered the sailors to give them their money and their wallets. One of the men had a pistol pointed in the direction of the sailors. Jones and Sodl turned around. The pistol was fired. Jones suffered an immediate wound to his right forehead and fell to the ground. Both assailants ran. Sodl sought medical aid for Jones, who died as a result of the injuries received. At trial the evidence showed, without dispute, that on the night of the fatal occurrence, Johnny Spicer, Timothy Hoops, Timothy Young, and Hester were together riding around in an automobile on the streets of Pascagoula. Young had a pistol. The suggestion was made that they rob somebody. From this point on, the memory of Spicer and Hester differ. Spicer testified that Sodl and Jones were accosted by Hester (age 19) and Hoops (age 13). Spicer claimed that Hester possessed the pistol and fired the fatal shot. Hester testified as follows: On cross-examination, Hester testified as follows: The record reveals that subsequent to submission of the case to the jury the following occurred: Hester appeals contending: 1. The trial court erred in refusing Instruction D-8 which would have allowed the jury to consider the theory of abandonment by him of a conspiracy or criminal enterprise to commit the crime of armed robbery. Other issues are raised but are not dispositive. Instruction D-8 reads as follows: Instruction D-8. In a homicide case, as in other criminal cases, the court should instruct the jury as to theories and grounds of defense, justification, or excuse supported by the evidence, and a failure to do so is error requiring reversal of a judgment of conviction. O'Bryant v. State, 530 So. 2d 129, 133 (Miss. 1988); Young v. State, 451 So. 2d 208, 210 (Miss. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 860, 105 S. Ct. 192, 83 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1984); 40 Am.Jur.2d § 514, 765 (1968). Even though based on meager evidence and highly unlikely, a defendant is entitled to have every legal defense he asserts to be submitted as a factual issue for determination by the jury under proper instruction of the court. O'Bryant at 133. Where a defendant's proffered instruction has an evidentiary basis, properly states the law, and is the only instruction presenting his theory of the case, refusal to grant it constitutes reversible error. Murphy v. State, 566 So. 2d 1201, 1207 (Miss. 1990); Sayles v. State, 552 So. 2d 1383, 1390 (Miss. 1989). There is no such thing as a directed verdict of guilty in a criminal case, either on the principal charge in general or on any of its components. In Lee v. State 469 So. 2d 1225 (Miss. 1985), Lee was indicted *873 and tried for aggravated assault arising out of an attempted jail break. Griffin, a deputy sheriff, testified for the State that Lee placed a knife against his neck, and threatened to kill him if he did not have the door opened and let him out. Lee testified that he made an arrangement with Griffin to let him escape in return for $200 and two diamond rings. Lee further testified that he never had the knife near Griffin's neck nor intended to pull a knife or stab anyone. On appeal from refusal of the trial court to grant Lee an instruction on simple assault, a lesser included offense, we stated: Lee, 469 So. 2d at 1230, 1231. Hester has the same right as any other defendant to have his theory of defense submitted to the jury if supported by evidence. The record shows that Hester's version of the facts differs from the version related by State's witnesses. Hester established an evidentiary predicate for the defenses contained in his requested but refused instructions. The proffered instructions were the only ones presenting his theories of defense. It was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to grant the instructions embodying his defense theories. If they were in improper form, it was the duty of the trial court to see that they were placed in proper form for jury submission. The failure of the trial court to grant Hester an instruction embodying his theory of defense constitutes reversible error and this cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.