I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - KA- 0 1 5 5 6 - S CT V ER IN A C H IL D Sa /k /a V ER IN A M . C H IL D Sa /k /a VERI NA M AR I E C HI L DS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 05/ 2011 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LE E J
. HOW ARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: OKTI BBE HA COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: DA VI D N EI L M c CA RTY AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY : BI LLY L. GO RE SCOTT STUA RT DI S T RI CT AT T ORNE Y: F OR RE S T AL L GOOD NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 05/ 23/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E R A N D O L P H , P . J. , P I E R C E A N D K I N G , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. V er i na C hi l ds ( “V er i na”) w as convi ct ed of murde r i ng he rhus band, D ougl as C hi l ds (“D o u g ”), on A u g u st 4, 20 1 1 , fo ll o w ing a fo u r-da y jury tr ial
. S h e w as se n tenc ed to li fe i m pr i s onm enti n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof C orr ect i ons ( M D O C )
. A f t er h e r c o n v ictio n , V e rin a filed a m o tio n fo r a n e w trial, w h ich w a s d e n ied . V e rin a n o w ap p e a ls fr o m th e ju d g m e n t o f th e C ir c u it C o u rto f O k tib b e h a C o u n ty , M is s is s ip p i. ¶2. O n ap peal, V eri na argu es three i ssues:

### 2

I . The St at e vi ol at e d C hi l ds ’ s d ue- pr oc e s s r i ght s by de s t r oy i ng e v i d e n c e i n v i o l a t i o n o f s t a t e l a w. I I . C hi l ds was deni ed her f und am ent alri ght to al t ernat i ve t heori es of d efense
. I I I . T he St at e f

ai l ed t o prove del i berat e- des i gn m urder. B e c a u se w e fin d th a t th e trial c o u rt d idn o t err in it s c o n v ictio n o f V e rin a , w e aff irm o n a ll three i ssues. S TATEM ENT OF THE FACTS ¶3
. V er i na and D oug C hi l ds w er e m embe r s of a hu nt i ng c l ub i n Okt i bb e ha C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi
. O n N ovember22, 2009, j us taf t erdaybr eak, D anny Fl y, a l ocalhunt er , not i ced D oug C hi l ds ’ s body l yi ng i n the edge of the w oods
. Fl y had see n D oug’ s truck ear l i erthat
m o rn in g b u t ha d h e a rd n o g u n sh o t pr io r to fin d in g the b o d y . D o u g h a d re c e iv e d a s in g le guns hotw ound t o the l ef ts i de of hi s uppe rba ck. T he pr oj ect i l e w as f i r ed by a M ar l i n 30/ 30 (“ 3 0 /3 0 ” ) h u n tin g ri fl e th a t b e lo n g e d to V e ri n a . ¶4
. V er i na a ndDoug ha d l e f th ome j us tb e f

or e d a yb r e a k t o go h un t i ng. V er i na w as
carryi ng her30/ 30, and short l y af t erarr i vi ng i n the w oods , s he and D oug s epar at ed. V er i na l at ert ol d the i nves t i gat orthats he had as t om ach ac he, so she sentD oug a t extst at i ng thats he
w as goi ng back t o the hous e. A f t erus i ng the res tr oom athom e, s he unl oaded he rr i f l e,
r emoved herhunt i ng c l othes , a nd s entD oug at exts t at i ng thats he w as goi ng t o cl ean a r ound th e h o u se . S h o rtly th e re a fte r, T in a R e e d p o u n d e d o n the d o o r a n d a sk e d V e rin a to c o m e w ith h e r. T h e y w e n t to th e s h o o tin g s c e n e a n d s a w D o u g ’s b o d y ly in g o n th e g ro u n d
. ¶5. D eputy C om m ander M ahyar N et adj , f ol l ow i ng V er i na’ s cons ent t o s ear ch, col l ect ed the r i f l e and s ever al pi ece s of

cl othi ng f

r om the hous e. V er i na t ol d N et adj thats he had ne ver

### 3

f i r ed the r i f

l e buthad unl oaded i tbecaus e she di d notl i ke t o keep l oaded guns i n the hous e. H ow ever , the otherguns i n the hous e al l w er e l oaded. L yi ng nextt o the 30/ 30 w as a gunc le a n in g k it. ¶ 6
. T h e o n ly w itn e ss fo r V e rin a ’s c a se -in -c h ief w a s h e r so n , Jo n a th a n C o k e r. V e rin a d id
n o t te s tif y a n d e le c te d to re m a in s ile n t. DI S CU S S I ON I . The St at e vi ol at e d C hi l ds ’ s due - pr oc e s s r i ght s by de s t r oy i ng e v i d e n c e i n v i o l a t i o n o f s t a t e l a w. ¶7
. V e rin a arg u es tha t h er du e-p roc ess righ ts w ere violated w h e n th e S tate a lleg e d ly des tr oyed f

i ngerpr i nta nd D N A e vi dence on the M ar l i n 30/ 30. She a r gues thatM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 49- 1 r equi r es the St at e t o pr es erve exc ul pat ory evi dence
. Sect i on 99- 49- 1, th e P re se rv a tio n L a w , req u ire s th a t an y e v id e n c e in a m u rd e r, m a n sla u g h ter, o r felo n y se x u a la ss a u lt ca se in th e p o ss e ss io n o f th e S tate o n Ju ly 1 , 2 0 0 9 , sh a ll b e p re se rv e d b y th e S tate
c o n s is te n t w ith le g is la tiv e in te n t. M is s . C o d e A n n . 9 9 -4 9 -1 (4 ) ( S u p p . 2 0 1 2 ). ¶8. T he St at e ar gues that none of V er i na’ s due- pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed, becaus e no evi dence w as destr oyed i n vi ol at i on of s t at e l aw . T he St at e al l eges thatthe Pr es ervat i on L aw f ocus es on bi ol ogi cal ev i dence thathas been f ound t o exi s tand i dent i f i ed, nots pecul at i ve bi ol ogi calevi dence thathas yett o be co l l ect ed or come i nt o bei ng. A ttr i al , I nves t i gat or B r ettW at s on t es t i f

i ed as t o w hy the 30/ 30 had notbeen t es t ed f orf i ngerpr i nt s . H e s t at ed that, at th e ti m e the y start ed to inv esti g ate, he h ad b eli ev ed D o u g ’s de ath w as m u rde r. A ccor di ngl y, i f

V er i na had notki l l ed herhus band, a murde r erw as atl ar ge. H e s ai d he had t o m ake achoi ce be tw een ba l l i s t i c t es t i ng, w hi ch eventual l y des tr oyed the f i ngerpr i nt s on the

### 4

r i f l e, and fi ngerpr i ntexam i nat i on. W hen the bal l i s t i cs re portcam e back f r om the cr i m e l ab, th e s lu g ta k e n fr o m D o u g ’s b o d y m a tc h e d th e 3 0 /3 0 V e ri n a h a d c a rr ie d th a t d a y . ¶9. T he 30/ 30 w as the r i f l e V er i na admi tt ed t o carryi ng thatday as w el l as the r i f l e that
w a s fo u n d la y in g o n th e irb e d a ft e r D o u g ’s b o d y w a s fo u n d o n th e h u n tin g g ro u n d . A f i ngerpr i ntt es tof

the gun w oul d have r evea l ed V er i na’ s f i ngerpr i nt s , as she al r eady ha d admi tt ed ow ning an d carryi ng the r i f l e thatm orni ng. N o evi dence w as pr es ent ed thatthe
r i f l e w as everoutof

V er i na’ s pos s es s i on fr om the t i m e V er i na l ef tthe house t o go hunt i ng
u n til th e in v e s tig a to rs s e iz e d th e ri fl e . ¶ 1 0
. C h ild s c laim s th a t th e d e stru c tio n o f a n y D N A o r fin g e rp rin t e v id e n c e th a t p ro ss ib ly
c o u ldh a v e b e e n fo u n d o n th e g u n a m o u n ts to ad u e -p ro c e ss v io latio n . W h e n s u c h a c laim i s m ade due t o de s truct i on of e vi dence , w e appl y athr ee- pr ong t es tt o det erm i ne w hetherthe d e s tru c tio n d o e s , in fa c t, a b ri d g e th e d e fe n d a n t’ s d u e -p ro c e s s ri g h ts . Mu rr a y v. Sta te , 849 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 8 5 -86 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). F o r th e d efe n d an t t o b e su cc essfu l, sh e m u st sho w a ll thr ee of the f ol l ow i ng: (1) the evi dence m us tbe appar ent l y excul pat ory, (2) ther e mustbe no compar abl e evi dence avai l abl e t o the def endant , and (3) l aw enf

or cement ’ s destruct i on of the
e v id e n c e m u s t h a v e b e e n in b a d f a ith
. Id
. See a l

so Ca lifo rn ia v. T

ro m b e tta , 467 U
. S. 479, 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 5 2 8 , 8 1 L . E d . 2 d 4 1 3 (1 9 8 4 ); A r i z ona v. Y

oungblood , 4 8 8 U .S . 5 1 , 1 0 9 S . C t. 3 3 3 , 1 0 2 L
. E d
. 2 d 3 8 1 (19 8 8 ). ¶ 1 1
. A s to th e first p ro n g , w e d o n o t fin d th a t th e p o ss ib le e v id e n c e lo s t w a s a p p a re n tly exculpat ory. I n Mc G ro n e v. Sta te , 798 So. 2d 519 ( M i s s . 2001) , thi s C ourti dent i f i ed an exampl e of

w ha ttyp e of

e vi de nc e w ou l d b e of

a n app a r e nte xc ulpa t ory n a tur e . M cG r one
w as s hoti n the l eg by apol i ce of f i cerbe f or e he w as appr ehende d a nd w ant ed t o pr ocur e the

### 5

pant s he w as w ear i ng atthe t i m e t o show thathe w as , i n fa ct , att empt i ng t o fl ee w hen he w as
s h o t b y th e o ff

ic e r. Mc G r one , 798 So. 2d at521. T he Mc G r oneC o u rt d e e m e d th e p a n ts to b e ap p a re n tly e x c u lp a to ry . Id
. at523. I n the ca s e s u b ju d ic e , i ti s a c tu a l l y n o tk n o wn
w hethers uch evi dence w as pr es enton the gun a tal l
. I t s very exi s t ence i s nothi ng m or e than a hypothet i cal , and w e have h el d that suc h s pecul at i on thats uch evi dence w oul d ai d the d e fe n s e is n o t s u ff

ic ie n t to s a tis fy th e fi rs t p ro n g . T o lber t v. S ta te , 5 11 S o. 2d 1368, 1372 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ) (“.
. . [T ] h e m ere p o ssibil ity the e v iden ce m igh t ai d the d efe n se d o es n o t sat isf y the cons t i tut i onal m at er i al i ty s t andar d. ”) ( quot i ng U nited States v. B inker , 795 F. 2d 1218, 1230 ( 5th C i r . 1986) )
. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd thatC hi l ds has f

ai l ed t o pr ove the f

i r s tpr ong
o f th e tes t. I I . C hi l ds was deni ed her f und am ent alr i ght t o al t ernat i ve t heori es of def ens e. ¶1 2. V er i naa r gu e s tha ts he was e nt i t l e d t o a j ury i ns truct i on thatthe s hoot i ng of her hu sband D ou g co uld have been an acc i den t . B ecause the tri al cou rtref used to al l ow this , V erina all eg es th at th e v erd ictm u st be rev erse d a n d th e c a se re m an d ed for a n ew tr ial
. In
rev iew ing the tri al co u rt ’s gra n t or d en ial o f j u ry in stru cti o n s, this C o u rtco n side rs j u ry instruction s “a s a w h o le ‘to d eterm ine if the jury w as p rop erly instruc ted,’ givin g ab u se-o fdi s c r e t i on d e f

e r e nc e t o the tr i a l j ud ge ’ s d e ci s i on. ” Cla y to n v. Sta te , 106 So. 3d 802, 804 ( M i s s . 2012) ( ci t i ng Flo w e rs v. Sta te , 5 1 S o . 3 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 2 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 )). ¶13. J ury I ns truct i on D
- 9, w hi ch w as r ef us ed, r ead: T h e C o u rtinstructs th e ju ry that “a cc iden tal d ea th” a n d “m u rde r” a re m u tually-ex clus ive term s. A n ac cide n tal d e a th c an n o t be th e re su lto f a del i ber at e des i gn t o ki l l
. L i kew i s e, a del i ber at e des i gn t o ki l l cannotpr oduce a n a c c id e n ta l d e a th
.

### 6

T her ef or e, i f , af t err evi ew i ng the evi dence as a w hol e, you f i nd thatD ougl as C hi l ds c ou l d h a ve di e d a s the r e s ul tof a n u ni nt e nt i on a l hu nt i ng a c c i d e n t

– wh e th e rc a u s e d b y th e De f e n d a n to rb y a n y k n o wn o ru n k n o wn p a rty
– y o u mu s tr e tu rn a v e r d i c to f NOT GUI L T Y. T he St at e obj ect ed t o thi s i ns truct i on becaus e, i ta r gued, no evi dence ha d be en pr es ent ed that thi s w as an ac ci dent
. N o one had t es t i f i ed thath e o rs he ac ci dent al l y had di s char ged a fi rea rm ; no test im o n y w as p rese n ted re g ard ing an ac cide n t; an d this C o u rth as h eld th at th ere
m us tbe a ba s i s i n the evi dence bef or e an i ns truct i on on accident al death m ay be gi ven. Mo n ta n a v. Sta te , 8 2 2 S o . 2 d 9 5 4 , 9 6 2 -6 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ). F u rth e r, th e S tate a rg u e s th a t th is
s peci f i c i ns truct i on pr es um es f act s noti n evi dence
. ¶14. I n r es pons e, V er i na ar gues that the w hol e cas e l acke d evi dence and that ther e w as no evi dence as t o w hetherornotan ac ci dent al s hoot i ng occurr ed. ¶15. W e fi nd that the tr i al court di d not abus e i t s dis cr et i on i n denyi ng a j ury i ns truct i on b a s e d o n th e fa c t th a t th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e to s u p p o rta n a c c id e n t. I I I . T he St at e f

ai l ed t o prove del i berat e- des i gn m urder
. ¶ 1 6
. V e rin a a rg u e s th a t th e e lem e n ts o f d e lib e ra te- d e sig n m u rd e r w e re n o t m e t a n d c o u ld nothave be en meti n thi s ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence cas e. D el i ber at e- des i gn m ur deri nvol ves th re e e lem e n ts: th e d e fe n d a n t k ill e d th e v ictim w ith o u t a u th o rity o f la w a n d w ith d e lib e ra te d e s ig n to e ff

e c t h is d e a th
. See M iss . C o d e A n n . 9 7 -3 -1 9 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ); P a rk e r v. Sta te , 30 So. 3d 12 22 , 12 31 (M i ss. 20 10 ). T his C ou rthas held that “[ i ] n cir cu m stan ti al- evidence cases, th e sta te is re q u ire d to p ro v e the ac c u se d ’s g u iltn o t o n ly b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, bu t to the excl us i on of eve ry otherhypothes i s cons i s t entw i th i nnocenc e. ” T h o m a s v. Sta te , 42 So. 3d 528, 539 ( M i ss. 2 01 0). V er i na ar gues thatther e i s notenough evi dence t o m eetthe

### 7

stan d ard for d eli b era te-de sign m u rde r, sinc e the o n ly ev iden ce is ci rcu m stan ti al. F u rth er, V e rin a a rg u e s, th e S tate n e v e r p ro v e d th a t th e sh o o tin g w a s a n y th in g m o re th a n a n a c c id e n t. ¶17. T he St at e ar gues that “del i ber at e des i gn, as a m att er of l aw , m ay be i nf err ed thr ough th e in ten tio n a l u se o f a n y in stru m e n t w h ich b a se d o n its m a n n e r o f u se , is c a lcu late d to pr oduce dea th or s er i ous bodi l y i nj ury. ” W ilso n v. Sta te , 936 So. 2d 357, 364 ( M i s s . 2006) ci t i ng J o n e s v. Sta te , 71 0 S o. 2d 87 0, 87 7 (M i ss. 19 98 ). T hu s, the S t at e assert s that the u se of a hi gh- pow er ed r i f

l e w as s uf

f i ci entt o s uppl y the nece s s ary i ngr edi entof del i ber at e des i gn. ¶1 8
. W e a g ree . T h e jury , as th e fa ct-fi n d er, co n v ict ed V erina o f de li b era te-de sign m u rde r. B e c a u se c irc u m s ta n tial e v id e n c e a lo n e is e n o u g h a n d a llo w a b le, w e fin d n o m e rit in th is
a s s e rt io n o f e rr o r. CO NC L US I ON ¶19
. W e fi n d n o err or i n the tri al cou rt ’s con vict i on of V eri na C hil ds. H er due-process ri g h ts w ere n o t v iolated ; she o ffered n o ev iden ce to su p p o rtan ac cide n t th eo ry fo r j u ry i ns truct i ons ; and the St at e pr oved del i ber at e- desi gn m ur der , al bei tby ci r cumst ant i al
e v id e n c e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e a ffirm th e c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e o f th e O k tib b e h a C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. ¶ 2 0
. CONVI CT I ON OF M URDE R AND S EN TE NCE OF L I F E I N T HE CUS TODY OF THE M I S S I S S I PP I DEPARTM ENT OF CO RRECTI ON S , AFF I RM ED
. W A LL ER , C. J . , DI CK I NSO N A ND RA ND O LPH , P. J J . , LA M AR , K I TC H EN S, CH AND LER AND C OLEM AN, J J . , CO NCU R. KI NG , J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY .