I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CT - 0 2 0 5 4 - S CT CHAD BOO KER
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 03/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. HEN RY L. LAC KEY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: TI P P AH COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: T. K. M OFFETT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: LAURA HOG AN TEDDER DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY: BENJ AM I N F. CRE EKM ORE 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 - 06/ 23/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. C h a d B o o k e r w a s c o n v ic te d o f m a n s la u g h te r in th e T ip p a h C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt, J udge H enry L
. L acke y pre s i di ng, and w as sent ence d t o t w enty year s i n the cus t ody of t he M iss iss ip p i D e p a rt m e n t o f C o rre c tio n s, w ith ten y e a rs s u sp e n d e d a n d fiv e y e a rs o f p o strel ease supervi si on . B oo ker app eal ed , and w e assi gn ed thi s case t o the C ou rtof A pp eal s. A f t erthe C our tof

A ppeal s af

f i r m ed the tr i al
- courtj udgm ent , w e gr ant ed B ooker ’ s pet i t i on f orw r i tof c ert i or ar i
. Fi ndi ng t hatno r ever s i bl e err oroccurr ed attr i al , w e af f i r m the j udgm ent
o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm in g th e T ip p a h C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt ju d g m e n t.

### 2 FACTS AND PROCEEDI NG S I N THE TRI AL CO URT ¶2. T he f

ol l ow i ng hi s t ory has been devel oped f r om the f act s and tr i al
- courtpr ocee di ngs
a s s e t f o rt h in th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls ’ o p in io n . B o o k e r v . S ta te , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 4 9 1 4 6 1 , at ** 1 -3 (¶¶ 2 -11 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 ). W e w il l add ad d it ion al facts fou n d in the rec o rd
as neede d f

orthe s ake of

t oday’ s di s cus s i on. ¶3
. T he e ve nt s tha ts e tBook e r ' s c on vi c t i on i nt o mot i on be gan as a di s put e bet w een nei ghbor s w ho al l l i ved nea rthe i nt er s ect i on of C ounty R oad s 81 3 and 817 i n the Pal m er C o m m u n ity o f T ip p a h C o u n ty . T h a t d isp u te c u lm in a ted in th e d e a th o f six ty -o n e -y e a r-o ld D a v id W h ite. W h ite a n d h is a d u lt so n , K e ith W h ite (K e ith ), o w n e d a n a ll-terra in v e h icle ( A T V ) s hop thatw as l ocat ed behi nd W hi t e' s hous e. Booker ' s pa r ent s , Bust erand F ri eda B o o k e r, li v e d a c ro ss th e s tre e t fro m W h ite. B o o k e r, w h o h a d h is o w n h o m e n e a r h is p a re n ts
a n d W h ite, w a s a tw e n ty -th re e -y e a r-o ld v e te ra n o f th e U n ited S tate s A rm y a t th e tim e h is di s put e w i th W hi t e ar os e. A s of M ar ch 2007, B ookeroper at ed an aut o body s hop and s tudi ed
r adi ol ogy atB l ue M ount ai n C ol l ege. ¶4
. O n Satur da y, M a r c h 10 , 2 00 7, W hi t e a nd Kei th w e r e wor ki ng a tthei rA T V s hop. B ookerdr ove a 1990s m odel For d M us t ang by the A T V s hop. A ccor di ng t o K ei th, B ooker dr ove t he M us t ang pas tt he shop atappr oxi m at el y seve nty- t o- ei ghty m i l es perhour
. B ooker and hi s pas s enger , T yl erM edl i n, di s put ed K ei th’ s e s t i m at e of thei rs peed. They t es t i f

i ed that B ookerw as dr i vi ng ata s peed be tw een f or ty and f

i f ty m i l es perhourw hen t hey pas s ed the W hi t es ’ A T V s hop. W hi t e w as of the opi ni on thatB ookerhad bee n dr i vi ng t oo f as t . W hen W hi t e and K ei th hear d t he M us t ang comi ng back, W hi t e w entout s i de and f l agged Booker d o w n . A c c o rd in g to b o th B o o k e r a n d M e d lin , W h ite h a d c o m e ru n n in g o u tsid e a n d a n g rily

### 3

t ol d Booke rtha th e was d r i vi ng t oo f a s t . W he n Booke rs a i d tha th e was t e s td r i vi ng t he M u stan g be ca u se h e co u ld no t g et i t to shifti n to th ir d ge ar, W h it e said , “N o t on m y d
--- ro a d !” M e d lin a n d B o o k e r b o th late r te stifie d th a t B o o k e r h a d rem a in e d c a lm a n d to ld W h ite thathe s houl d cal l the author i t i es i f he had a pr obl em. W hen W hi t e r eturned t o hi s hous e, he d id e x a c tly th a t. ¶5. U nf

or tunat el y, thatw as nott he end o f t he dis pu t e. A ccor di ng t o K ei th, l at er that eveni ng, B ookerhad s t opped atthe end of W hi t e' s dr i vew ay, puthi s truck i n neutr al , and
re v v e d th e e n g in e . K e ith te stifie d th a t B o o k e r h a d d riv e n p a st W h ite' s h o u se a p p ro x im a tely fou r t im es th at nig h t, an d o n h is l ast p ass, he h ad y ell ed “f--- yo u . ” S h ad e W h it e (S h ad e), K ei th' s s on and W hi t e' s gra nds on, al s o t es t i f i ed t hathe had hear d B ooker ' s truck s t op i n f r ont of the hous e ei therf

ourorf i ve t i m es and thathe had he ar d B ookerr ev hi s engi ne. ¶6. W hi t e' s w i f

e, Char l ot t e, t es t i f

i ed thatB ooker ' s par ent s eac h had ca l l ed thei rhous e on S u n d ay afterno o n at sep ara te t im es reg ard ing th e co n fron tat ion be tw ee n W h it e a n d B o o k er. A ccor di ng t o Char l ot t e, the ca l l f r om B ooker ' s par ent s had l ed t o a di s cus s i on aboutw hether W h it e sh o u ld ap o log ize to B o o k er. W h it e h ad n o t th o u g h t he n ee d ed to ap o log ize to B o o k er. H ow ever , C har l ot t e t es t i f i ed thatt he l as tthi ng she had hea r d W hi t e s ay r egar di ng the s ubj ect
w a s , “ I'm g o in g to a p o lo g iz e .” ¶ 7
. I ti s u n d i s p u t e d th a tBo o k e rb e a tW h i t e t o d e a th th e n e x te v e n i n g . P h i l l i p “ P o s s u m” N ance gave s t at ement s t o T err y C ox, an i nves t i gat orem pl oyed by B ooker ' s def ens e att or ney,
a n d A g e n t J o h n H ill h o u se o f th e M iss iss ip p i B u re a u o f In v e stig a tio n (M B I). In b o th st at em ents , N ance s ai d thatB ookerhad s t opped by hi s us ed- cardeal er s hi p on M ar ch 12. A ccor di ng t o N ance , B ookerhad t old hi m abouthi s conf r ont at i on w i th W hi t e tw o days

### A Rhino i s an AT V withtwo bucket se at s ( enc los ed wi th a

rol l bar) , a

ce nte r- 1 

### mountedcon sole sh ifter, anda steel dump b ed. Photos of the c ri mesc enedif fe r f rom Booke r’ s t es timony a s thes e phot os depic t t he 2 

### Rh ino po sition ed b etweenthe tru ck (u sed to stowgarb age) an d th e countyroad
. 4 ear l i er . N ance st at ed t hatB ookerhad been conf us ed as t o w hy W hi t e had c al l ed the pol i ce. N ance t ol d A gen tH i l l house thatB ookerhad bee n cal m and thathe had nots ai d anythi ng aboutr et al i at i ng agai ns tW hi t e. H ow ever , N ance al s o s ai d that , acc or di ng t o B ooker , dur i ng th e c o n fro n tatio n th e p re v io u s S a tu rd a y , B o o k e r h a d to ld W h ite th a t h e (W h ite) c o u ld c a ll th e a u th o ri tie s , o r h e (B o o k e r) c o u ld g e t o u t o f t h e M u s ta n g s o th e y c o u ld “ s e ttle it lik e m e n .” ¶8. O n M onday, M ar ch 12, 2007, K ei th and W hi t e w er e r eturni ng hom e f r om pi cki ng up an A T V
. K ei th t es t i f

i ed t hat, on t hei rw ay home, they s aw B ookerathi s s hop, and they
w a v e d a th i m . K e i th t e s t i f i e d th a tB o o k e rh a d w a v e d b a c k
. B o o k e rl a t e rc o rr o b o r a t e d K e i th 's t es t i m ony. A ccor di ng to K ei t h, af t erthey had a rr i ved atthei rs hop, W hi t e dec i ded t o go
a p o lo g ize to B o o k e r in a n a ttem p t to m a k e p e a c e . K e ith te stifie d th a t h e h a d w a tch e d W h ite dri ve h i s Y am aha R hino A T V t o B oo ker' s ho use. K ei th had go ne b ack in the sho p. K ei th als o test if ied th at W h it e h ad ap p ea red ca lm w h en h e h ad left
. W h en W h it e a rri v ed at B o o k er’s pr operty, B ookerw as pl aci ng t r as h i n the bed of a truck parked nea rthe end of hi s dr i vew ay,
w hi ch conne ct s t o t he county r oad. ¶ 9
. A c c o rd in g to B o o k e r, W h ite h a d c o m e “ fl y in g d o w n [C o u n ty R o a d ] 81 3 ” to h is p rop erty in a R h ino “a n d k ind a sp u n li k e h e w as g o ing to d o a U there ” in B o o k er’s 1 dr i vew ay. B ookerexpl ai ned thatW hi t e had pa r ked i n hi s dr i vew ay, turned off the Rhi no, 2 gotoutof

i tqui ckl y, a nd t ol d Bookerthathe ha d t o t al k t o hi m . B ookert es t i f i ed thathe had t ol d W hi t e t o l eave hi s prope r ty becaus e he di d notw antt o t al k t o hi m . B ookeral s o t es t i f i ed

### Whit e’ s gl as se s we rean e stim at ed f our f ee t f rom theRhino and had been dam age d. 3 

### 5 thatW hi t e had s ai d, “Y ou' r e goi ng t o t al k t o me. ” A ccor di ng t o B ooker , W hi t e had a t t empt ed t o gr ab B ooker ' s col l arw i t h on e h and and t r i ed t o punch hi m w i th the otherhand. B ooker t es t i f i ed thathe had gr abbed W hi t e' s w ri st , and w hi l e pul l i ng W hi t e t ow ar d hi m , he had punched W hi t e i n t he f

ace t hr ee t i m es . B ookerf ur thert es t i f

i ed thatW hi t e had s tum bl ed aw ay and had s atback dow n i n t he R hi no. ¶ 1 0
. B o o k e r w a lk e d a w a y fro m th e sc e n e o f th e a lterc a tio n . A c c o rd in g to B o o k e r, W h ite had bee n s t i l l s t andi ng w hen he ha d l ef t . B ookerl at erexpl ai ned t hathe had w al ked dow n the
r oad and cal l ed hi s c ous i n W endel l Booker( W endel l )
. Bookera s ked W endel l t o c om e get hi m be caus e he “had been i n a ba d s i tuat i on. ” Shor t l y a f t erW endel l ha d pi cked hi m up, B ooker ' s m othercal l ed hi m . B ookerre turned t o hi s shop, w her e he w as t aken i nt o cus t ody b y o ffic e rs w ith th e T ip p a h C o u n ty S h e riff' s D e p a rtm e n t. ¶11. B r enda M or gan, a c ert i f i ed nur s e w ho f

or m er l y ha d w or ked i n the emer gency r oom
an d inten sive -ca re u n itof th e loc al ho sp it al, h ap p en ed to d ri v e b y the s ce n e a sh o rtti m e later. M or gan knew W hi t e, buts he di d notr ecogni ze hi m . She s t op ped sol el y beca us e s he s aw
s om eone s l um ped overi n a n A T V
. W hi t e w as unc ons ci ous a nd s l um ped overthe cent er
cons ol e of

the R hi no . T he l ef

ts i de of W hi t e' s f

ace w as extr emel y s w ol l en, and he w as b l e e d i n g f

r o m b o th e a r s a n d h i s n o s e . B l o o d w a s o n t h e c e n t e rc o n s o l e s h i f th a n d l e . W h i t e 's gl as s es w er e i n the county r oad, adj ace ntt o the R hi no, and hi s bas ebal l cap w as on t he 3 pas s enger - s i de f

l oorboar d of

the R hi no. M or gan di d notdet ecta pul s e o n W hit e' s w r i s tor hi s neck. M or gan cal l ed 911, a nd then s he and J ef f B ut l er , w ho al s o had s t opped as he dr ove by , go tW hit e ou tof the A T V and beg an to perf orm C P R
. A no ther o f W h i t e' s nei gh bo rs ,

### JudgeIs heewrot e a dis se nting opini on, j oine d by Chie f J udge King , o pin ing that 4 

### Booker’s convi ction s hould have be en r eve rs ed and theca sere manded f or a new tri aldue t o e rr on e ou s ly re f

us e d j ur y ins tr uc t i on s and

e rr on e ous rul ing s one vi de nti ary i s s ue s . Tw o judge s di d not partic ipate . 6 C l i nt on B ryant , dr ove by and not i ced thats om ethi ng appea r ed t o be w r ong w i th W hi t e. B ryantf ound K ei th and t ol d hi m t hatW hi t e appe ar ed t o need hel p. W hen K ei th arr i ved at B ooker ' s ho us e , he f

ou nd M or ga n a nd But l e rt e nd i ng t o h i s f a the r . D e s pi t e the e f

f ort s of
em ergency res po nd ers , W hit e w as unab l e t o recov er f rom his i njur i es. ¶12. B ooker w as i ndi ct ed f or m ur der
. H e pl eade d not gui l ty, and the cas e ul t i m at el y w ent t o tr i al
. A tthe conc l us i on of B ooker ' s tr i al , the ci r cui tc our ti ns truct ed the j ury on m ur derand
m a n s la u g h te r; th e ju ry fo u n d B o o k e r g u ilty o f m a n s la u g h te r. B ooker , 2010 W L 24 91 461, at ** 1 -3 (¶ ¶ 2 -11 ).PROCEEDI NG S I N THE C OU RT OF APPE ALS ¶1 3
. B efo re the C o u rt o f A p p ea ls, B o o k er raised the foll o w ing six issue s: (1 ) th e c irc u it
courterr ed i n denyi ng B ooker ' s m ot i ons fora di r ect ed ver di ct , j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the
v e rd ict, a n d a n e w trial; (2 ) th e circ u it c o u rt fa iled to p ro p e rly in stru c t th e ju ry ; (3 ) th e c irc u it
c o u rt e rre d in a llo w in g M o rg a n to g iv e o p in io n tes tim o n y ; (4 ) th e c irc u it co u rt e rre d in al l ow i ng Shade t o t es t i f y; ( 5) the ci r cui tc our te rr ed i n r ef us i ng t o admi tevi dence of f er ed by B ooker ; and ( 6) the ci r cui tcour terr ed i n al l ow i ng t es t i m ony conce rni ng w her e W hi t e' s cap
w a s fo u n d
. B ooker , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 4 9 1 4 6 1 , at *3 (¶1 1 ). DI S CU S S I ON ¶14. T he m aj or i ty f

or the C our t of A ppeal s f ound no m er i t i n B ooker ' s ar gum ent s . A f t er 4 th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d e n ied B o o k e r’s m o tio n fo r r e h e a rin g , B o o k e r f iled a p e tit io n fo r w rit

### For the s akeof c lari ty, w e acknowledgethat Booke r, through couns el , obj ec te d at 5 

### tria l t o theState ’s Jur

y Ins tr uction S- 2A, b ut the obj ec ti on to t his ins tr uction wa s t o the inc lus ion of theter

m, “dea dly force .”Booker did not obje ct by al le ging t

hat theins tr uction containedan in correct statement of th e law on the elements of man slaug hter. Inhis ap pellate bri ef , Booke r, through couns el , ne ver argued that

theins tr uction was an incor

re ct st at em ent of the l aw, but only that t her e wa s insuf

fi ci ent evi denc e to supp ort the granting of the mansl aught er

ins truction. In hi s pe ti ti on for wri t of ce rtiorari, Booker , f

or the f ir st time , atta cks thewording of Jury Instruc ti on S-2A by a ss erting: T ] he “he atof

pas s i on” mansl aught ers t atut e, M i s s . C ode A nn. §97-3- 35, requi r es thatthe ki l l i ng be done “ i n a c ruel orunus ual manner , orby t he u se of a danger ou s w eapon. ” N o danger ous w eapon w as us ed. A l though thr ee qui ck punche s t o t he head w hen one i s be i ng punc hed athi m s el f s houl d notbe s uf f i ci entt o cons t i tute “a cruel orunus ual m anner ” as cont empl at ed by the s t atut e, the tr i al court , atthe very l eas t , had a duty t o i ns tructt he j ury as t o the i s s ue s o t hatthe j ury coul d m ake thatdet erm i nat i on. 

### Sinc e no cont em

poraneous objec ti on was m adeat tria l on t he i ss ue that

theState ’s prof

fe re d manslau ghter instru ctioncontainedan in correct statement of th e law, B oo ker is pro cedurally barredfrom mak ing this assertio n fo r the first time o n ap peal. Birkhea d v. State , 57 So. 3d 1223, 1239 ( Mis s. 2011). Fina lly, wenotethat, oncethe trial court grante d theState ’s prof fere d manslaug hter in structio n, B oo ker w ithdrew h is pro po sed man slaug hter instr uction from co nsid erationbythe trial co urt. T hu s, the trial co urt w as nev er giventhe o pp ortunity to ru le onBo ok er’s pro po sed man slaug hter in structio n. 7 of cer t i or ar i , a s ki ng us t o c on s i de rs e ve r a l i s s ue s , i nc l ud i ng the i s s ue of w he the rthe t r i al
courterr ed i n f

ai l i ng t o gr anta di r ect ed ver dicto f acqu i t t al underthe W eat hers by rul e. W e a th e rs b y v. S ta te , 165 M i s s . 207, 147 So. 481, 482 ( 1933)
. I n gr ant i ng cert i or ar i , w e have th e a u th o ri ty to “ lim it th e q u e s tio n o n re v ie w .” M is s . R . A p p . P . 1 7 (h ). B ro w n v. S ta te , 39 5 So. 3d 890, 895 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng B ro w n v. S ta te , 98 6 S o . 2d 27 0 , 27 2 n.1 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ); D o ra v. S ta te , 9 8 6 S o . 2 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 1 n . 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 )). ¶15. W e s peci f

i cal l y not e o ur agreem ent w i t h t he C ou rto f A ppeal s ’ f i ndi ng that the W eat hers by rul e w as i nappl i cabl e underthe f act s of thi s c as e. W e w r i t e t oday t o expand the

### 8

C our tof A ppeal s ’ di s cus s i on on thi s i s s ue i nas m uch as t hi s C our ti s di vi ded on the i s s ue of
w hetherthe W

eat hers by ru le a p p lies in to d a y ’s c a se b a se d o n th e r e c o rd b e fo re u s. W ith regar d t o B oo ker’ s rem ai ning is sues, w e fi nd the C ou rto f A pp eal s very ably di scussed t hese i s s u e s , c o rr e c t l y a p p l y i n g th e l a w t o th e f a c t s a s r e v e a l e d i n t h e r e c o r d
. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we adoptthe C our tof

A ppeal s ’ anal ys es on thes e r emai ni ng i ssues , and w e f i nd them t o be
w ith o u t m e ri t. B ooker , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 4 9 1 4 6 1 , at ** 3 -16 (¶¶ 1 5 -63 ). ¶16. W e turn now t o ourdi s cus s i on of the W eat hers by rul e, a nd w e r es t at e the i s s ue f or the
s ake of ourdi s cus s i on. W HET HER T HE T RI AL COUR T ER RE D B Y R EF US I NG TO GRAN T BOO KER’ S M OTI ON FOR A D I RECTED VERD I CT UND ER W EAT HERSB Y

. ¶17. T he W

eat hers by rul e st at es,
w h e re th e d e fe n d a n t o r th e d e fe n d a n t’s w itn e ss e s a re the o n ly e y e w itn e ss e s to th e h o m ic id e , th e irv e rs io n , if re a s o n a b le , m u s t b e a c c e p te d a s tru e , un l ess s ub s tan t i al l

y c on tr ad i ct edin m at er i al part i cul ar s by a cr edi bl e w i tnes s or w itn esse s for the stat e, or b y the p hysica l f

a cts o r by the f

act s of com m on know l edge
. W e a th e rs b y v. S ta te , 1 6 5 M iss. 2 0 7 , 1 4 7 S o . 48 1 , 48 2 (19 3 3 ) ( em p h asis ad d ed ). T h is C o u rt al s o has r ecogni zed that , i f the def end ant ’ s t es t i m ony “s at i s f i es al l the el ement s of

m ur der
orm ans l aught er, t he def endantw oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o a di r ect ed ver di ctof acqui t t al , as [ thi s ] t es t i m ony w oul d be t he bas i s f ora val i d convi ct i on[ , ] ” and the W eat hers by ru le w o u ld
n o t a p p ly
. J

o h n so n v. S ta te , 9 8 7 S o . 2 d 4 2 0 , 4 2 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). ¶18. W e f

i nd W eat hers by i nappl i cabl e f

ortw o di s t i nctr eas ons : ( 1) B ooker ’ s ver s i on of the in c id e n t sa tisfie s th e e lem e n ts o f m a n sla u g h ter , an d (2 ) B o o k e r’s v e rsio n “ is s u b sta n tially
co n tr ad ict ed in m aterial p arti cu lars” (a) b y cre d ible w itn esse s, inclu d ing the p rose cu ti o n ’s

### Mis si ss ippiCode Se ction 97- 3-35 ( Rev. 2006) de fines mansl aught er as “[ t] he ki ll ing 6 

### of a human being, wi thout

ma li ce , in theheat of pa ss ion, but in a c rue l or unusua l m anne r, or by the us e of

a dangerous we apon, without a uthority of l aw, and not

in ne ce ss ar

y se lf
def ens e . . . .” 9 w i t nes s e s ; ( b) b y the p hy s i c a l f a c t s a tthe c r i me s c e ne ; a nd ( c ) b y the f a c t s o f comm on k n o w le d g e . W

eat hers by , 1 4 7 S o . at 4 8 2 ; s ee Johnson , 987 So. 2d at424- 25. 1. E l em ents of M

an slau gh t er ¶ 1 9
. M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -3 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ) “ c o n tem p late s a ltern a tiv e th e o rie s to
s us t ai n a mansl aught erconvi ct i on i n thatthe cr i m e m ay be char ged as a ki l l i ng i n ‘ a cruel or
u n u su al m an n er’ or‘ by us e of a dea dl y w eapon. ’ ” See Ma rtin v. S ta te , 818 S o. 2d 380, 382 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (c iti n g M iss
. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -3 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 )). “ It is a g e n e ra l ru le thatw her e a s t atut e denounc es as an of f ens e tw o orm or e di s t i nct i ve ac t s , thi ngs , or tra n sa c tio n s e n u m e ra ted the re in in th e d isju n c tiv e , the w h o le m a y b e c h a rg e d c o n ju n c tiv e ly and the def

endantf ound gui l ty of

ei therone. ” Ma rtin , 818 So. 2d at382 ( quot i ng L enoirv. S ta te , 2 3 7 M iss. 6 2 0 , 6 2 3 , 1 1 5 S o . 2 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 2 (19 5 9 )). T o fi n d B o o k er g u il ty o f the lesserin c lu d e d o ffe n se o f m a n sla u g h ter , the ju ry c o u ld h a v e f o u n d , am o n g th e o th e r re q u isite
e lem e n ts, th a t B o o k e r h a d k ill e d W h ite in a “ c ru e l or u n u su a l m a n n e r” o r “ b y u se o f a d e a d ly
w eapon. ” Ma rtin , 8 1 8 S o . 2 d a t 3 8 2 ; M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -3 5
. ¶20. T he C our tof

A ppeal s f

ound thatthe l earned tr i al j udge corr ect l y had det erm i ned that the W eat hers by ru le w a s n o t a p p lic a b le to th e fa c ts o f t h is c a s e . B o o k e r v . S ta te , 2 0 1 0 WL 2 4 9 1 4 6 1 , at *3 (¶¶ 1 2 -14 ). S p e c if icall y , the C o u rto f A p p ea ls r ea so n ed that “B o o k er’s
ver s i on of

the i nci dents at i s f

i e[ d] the el ement s of

m ans l aught er ” under M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S ec ti o n 97 -3-3 5 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). I d. at*3 ( ¶14)
. In otherw or ds , even i f the j ury bel i eved that 6

### 10

W hi t e had a t t acke d Booker , the j ury r eas onabl y c oul d ha ve f ound, ba s ed on B ooker ’ s ver s i on of the i nci dent , thatBookerdi d nota cti n ne ces s ary s el f
- def ens e and w as gui l ty of
m an slau g h ter. ¶21. A l though t he C our tof A ppeal s di d nots peci f i cal l y art i cul at e how B ooker ’ s ver s i on of the i nci dentw oul d have s at i s f i ed the el ement s of

mansl aught era tthatpoi nti n the opi ni on, the C our tof

A ppeal s l at ers t at ed: It is im p o rt a n t to c o n s id e r t h a t, e v e n if th e e v ide n c e w a s u n d isp u tedth a t W h ite w as the i ni t i alaggress or , the j ury coul d have s t i l l f ound B ookergui l ty of m a n s la u g h te r. See Co o

p e r v . S ta te , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d 6 6 5 , 6 7 1 -7 2 (¶ 2 7 ) (M iss . C t. A pp. 2005)
. T he ext entof f or ce us ed by B ookeri n exert i ng hi s cl ai m of nece s s ary sel f- def

ens e w as f

r ontand ce nt eri n thi s cas e. T he j ury w as i ns t ruct e d tha tthe d e gr e e o f f or c e u s e d i n ne c e s s a ry s e l f
- de f e ns e mus tbe m eas ur ed by the degr ee of the thr eatof

harm thatw as app arentf r om the c irc u m sta n c e s. A re a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t B o o k e r c o u ld have r eadi l y s ubdued any t hr eatW hi t e pose d w i thoutbeat i ng W hi t e t o death. As o f M a r c h 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , Bo o k e rwa s a twe n ty - th r e e - y e a r - o l d ma n i n p r i me p h y sic a l c o n d iti o n w h o re lativ e ly re c e n tly h a d re tu rn e d fro m a c tiv e d u ty w ith the U n it ed S tat es A rm y . B o o k er w as 5 ' 1 1 an d w eigh ed 1 7 0 p o u n d s. H o w ev er, B ookert es t i f

i ed thathe w or ked out“[ p] r etty m uch eve ryday, ” and a tthatt i m e, he coul d bench pr es s appr oxi m at el y 405 pounds w hil e w ear i ng a part i cul ar s h i r td e s i g n e d t o a i d we i g h t l i f t e r s . W h i t e wa s s i x ty - o n e y e a r s o l d a n d two i nches s hor t erthan B ooker
. T es t i m ony i ndi cat ed thatW hi t e had hi gh bl ood pr es s ur e, har deni ng of

the art er i es, and he w as bor der l i ne di abet i c. H e w as c e rta in ly n o t a s p h y sic a lly c o n d iti o n e d a s B o o k e r. T h e p ro se c u tio n re p e a ted ly as ked B ookeri f

he w as af

r ai d of W hi t e and w hetheri tw as nece s s ary t o actas he di d. B ookers i m pl y ans w er ed thathe “j us tr eac t ed” a nd thathe di d notknow w h e th e r h e c o u ld h a v e su b d u e d W h ite in so m e w a y sh o rt o f b e a tin g h im to d e a th
. B ooker , 2010 W L 249146 1, at *11 ( ¶42) ( emphasi s added)
. B as ed on B ooker ’ s t es t i m ony thathe had s truck W hi t e thr ee t i m es i n the head, the j ury coul d have c oncl uded thatB ooker d id n o t act i n n ec essa ry se lf -de fen se a n d w as g u il ty o f m an slau g h ter.

### 11

¶2 2. T hi s C our tagr ees . I n C oo per , a f f i r mi ng a mans l a ug ht e rc on vi c t i on , the Cour t of A ppeal s f

ound thatt he j ury coul d have c ons i der ed w hetherthe def endanthad us ed exc es s i ve fo rc e w h e n strik in g th e a lleg e d a g g re ss o r fo r a se c o n d tim e w ith a b a se b a ll b a t: A r eas onabl e, hypothet i cal j ur orcoul d concl ude thatC ooper , havi ng l anded th e firs t b lo w to K e n n e th ’s s k u ll, a c ted u n re a so n a b ly w h e n h e stru c k K e n n e th i n the hea d agai n. N otonl y di d he st ri ke him agai n, he s truck hi m w i th an a lu m in u m b a se b a ll b a t. Itis n o t o u tsid e th e re a lm o f p o ss ib ili ty th a t a reas on able hyp othet i cal j uror could f i nd that C oo per di d no tacti n sel f- defense b e c a u se C o o p e r, h a v in g la n d e d a p re v io u s sk u ll-cr u sh in g b lo w w ith a b a se b a ll bat , del i ver ed a s econd s kul l
- crus hi ng bl ow . A re as onabl e hypothet i cal j ur or c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t K e n n e th w o u ld h a v e b e e n in c a p a c itate d b y a strik e w ith f or ce s uf f i ci entt o s hatt erhi s skull , so t hathe coul d nothave pr es ent ed a rea so n ab le th rea t su ffi cien t to w arran t a si m il ar fo ll o w -up str ike to K en n eth’s head. W hi l e t es t i m ony i ndi cat ed thatC ooperact ed i n s el f
- def ens e and de f

ens e of other s , t es t i m ony al s o i ndi cat ed thatC ooperacted u nr eas onabl y . . . . U nder the ci r cumst ance s , w e def ert o t he j ur or s as f

i nder s of f act , and the j ury f

ound thatC ooperact ed unr eas onabl y underthe ci r cumst ance s w hen the j ury f ound C o o p er g u il ty o f m an slau g h ter. Cooper , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d at 6 7 1 -72
. U n d er Cooper , w hen a de f endant , upon bei ng att acke d,
re p e a ted ly strik e s a n o th e r w ith a d e a d ly w e a p o n , in th e h e a t o f p a ss io n b u t n o lo n g e r in
n e c e s s a ry s e lf

-d e fe n s e , th e n th is d e fe n d a n t c a n b e g u ilty o f m a n s la u g h te r. Cooper , 911 So. 2d at671- 72. ¶23. I n Cooper , th e d e fe n d a n t u s e d a b a s e b a ll b a t a s a d e a d ly w e a p o n . I d. B ooker t es t i f

i ed th at he ha d ret ali ated w ith his f ist s. T h is C o u rtha s st ated th at w h ethe r a de fen d an t’s fists
cons t i tut e a deadl y w eapon i s a j ury que st i on . In P u llia m v. S ta te , 298 So. 2d 711, 713 ( M i s s . 1974) , a ca s e dec i ded underthe f or m eraggr avat ed- as s aul ts t atut e ( Sect i on 2011,

### No w M ississipp i Co de S ection97 -3-7 (Rev . 20 06 ). 7 

### If the jury fo un d th at Bo ok er’s fists, usedrepeated ly und er the circums tances, 8 

### con stituteda dan gero us w eapo n , th en malice w ou ld h ave b een imp lied. Whena dead ly weap onis used , malice is implied
. Wilso n v. S tate , 574 So. 2d 1324, 1336 ( Mis s. 1991) (c iting Fa irchild

v. Sta te , 459 So. 2d 793, 802 ( Mis s. 1984) ). Howe ver , no ma li ceis pre se nt if the d efend ant was actin g inthe h eat of p assion
. Id. Her e, ac cording t o Booker ’s ver si on of the inci dent , Whi teatta cke d Booker . Coupl ed with the fa ct s that Whit e and Booke r ha d bee n at odds wi th e ac h othe r in thedays bef orethealt ercati on, thi s al le ged a ct of a ggre ss ion was suf fi ci ent to s upport

a f inding that Booke r r epe at edly str uck Whit e in theheat

of pa ss ion andno t out of malice. See Jo nes v. State , 39 So. 3d 860, 866 (Mi ss . 2010) (c it ations omi tt ed) (de fining he at

of pa ss ion a s a

“s tateof vi ole nt and uncontrol la bleragee ngende re d by a bl ow or c ertain ot

her provoc ation given” ))
. 12 M i s s i s s i ppi C ode, 1942 A nnot at ed ( 1956) ) , thi s C our ts t at ed that“[ w ] hi l e the us e of f eetand 7 fists o rd in a rily w o u ld n o t co n stitu te th e u se o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n , the y c a n c o n stitu te a d e a d ly
w eapon i f

used w i th m eans orf

or ce l i kel y t o pr oduce de ath. W hetherthey ar e s o us ed i s f or th e ju ry to d e te r m in e f

r o m th e e v id e n c e .” See J a c kso n v. S ta te , 59 4 S o. 2d 20 , 24 (M i ss. 8 1 9 9 2 )); s ee al

s o K in gv. S ta te , 251 M i ss. 1 61 , 168 So. 2d 637 ( 1964) ( af f i r m i ng
m a n s la u g h ter c o n v ictio n w h e re d e fe n d a n t “s to m p e d ” th e d e c e d e n t to d e a th ); Jo hns on v. S ta te , 23 0 S o. 2d 81 0, 81 1 (M i ss. 19 70 ) (fi nd i ng that w hethera “shoe cl ad foot” w as a deadl y w eapon, unde rthe f or m era ggr avat ed- as s aul ts t atut e, w as a j ury det erm i nat i on “i n t he li g h t of ev iden ce as to h o w an d in w h at m an n er itis em p loy ed
. ”). ¶2 4. A l t er nat i vel y, the j ury c ou l d ha ve f ou nd tha t Booke r ha d ki l l e d W hi t e i n a c rue l or
u n u su a l m a n n e r. T h e m a jo rity fo r th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls p o in ted o u t: B ookeradmi t t ed thath e p un ched W hi t e i n the hea d s ever al t i m es , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n W hi t e’ s death. A tbe s t , the evi dence i ndi cat es thatBookerl anded th re e p u n c h e s to th e le ft s id e o f W h ite’s h e a d w h ile W h ite w a s a ttem p tin g to p u n c h h im . A t w o rst, B o o k e r p u n c h e d W h ite in th e h e a d w h ile W h ite re m a in e d se a ted in th e R h in o . E ith e r o f th e se sc e n a rio s is su ffic ien t to c o n s titu te “ a c ru e l o r u n u s u a l m a n n e r.”

### 13

B ooker , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 4 9 1 4 6 1 , a t * 4 (¶ 1 7 ). ¶25
. W e f

i nd that B oo ker’ s stri king W hit e t hree t i m es suf fi ci entl y p r es ent ed a j ury ques t i on
a s to w h e th e r B o o k e r’ s a c tio n s w e re c ru e l o r u n u s u a l. See Ma rtin v. S ta te , 354 So. 2d 1114, 1117- 18 ( M i s s . 1978) ( perm i t t i ng j ury i nst ruct i on f orm ans l aught erbas ed on cruel and
unus ual m anner“w her e i tw as uncontr overt ed thatthe dec eas ed [ a chi l d] w as the vi ct i m of
a b ru tal b e a tin g ” ). B o o k e r a d m itt e d th a t h e h a d g ra b b e d W h ite, a s ix ty -o n e -y e a r-o ld m a n in l e s s - th a n - g o o d h e a l th , b y th e wr i s t s , h a d p u l l e d W h i t e t o wa r d s h i m a n d h a d p u n c h e d h i m. H e s truck hi m , notonce butthr ee t i m es on the s i de of t he head
. U ncontr adi ct ed phys i cal evi dence s how ed thatW hi t e di ed of bl unt - f or ce tr auma t o hi s he ad. Boo ker’ s punches
s epar at ed bl ood ves s el s i n W hi t e’ s br ai n f r om hi s s kul l , c aus i ng W hi t e’ s br ai n t o bl eed a nd
s w el l , r es ul t i ng i n hi s death. ¶26. E ven bas ed on B ooker ’ s ver s i on of the i nci dent , the j ury r eas onabl y coul d have f ound thatB ookerdi d notacti n nece s s ar y sel f- defe ns e and w as gui l ty of m ans l aught er , t hus
m aki ng the W

eat hers by rul e i nappl i cabl e. 2 . E v ide n c e Su b sta n tia lly C o n tra d ictin gB o o ke r’s V e rs io n o f th e In c ide n t ¶27. O n the otherha nd, e vi dence i n the r ecor d s ubs t ant i al l y contr adi ct s B ooker ’ s cl ai m of
s e lf -d e fe n s e a n d s u p p o r ts t h e m a n s la u g h te r c o n v ic tio n . See Johnson , 987 So. 2d at424 (s ta tin g th a t d e fe n d a n t’ s v e rs io n “ if re a s o n a b le , m u s t b e a c c e p te d a s tru e , u n les s s u b sta n tia lly
con tradicted in m ater i al part i culars b y . . . the p h y sical facts .
. . . ”) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶28. A f

t erB ooker ’ s couns el moved f ora di r ect ed ver di cta tthe cl os e of the St at e’ s cas e- i nch ief, the tri al jud g e ex p lai n ed h is reaso n s fo r d en y ing B o o k er’s m o ti o n u n d er W eat hers by :

### 14

a p ri m a fa cie c ase o f m u rde r ha s b ee n m ad e o u t, p articu lar ly in the C o u rt ’s opi ni on, as t o the natur e and s ever i ty of the i nj ur i es f

r om the phot ogr aphs that w er e t aken.

. . . . T h e W e a th e rsb y ru le is still aliv e a n d , o f c o u rse , w h e re th e d e fe n d a n t an d h is w itn esse s are the o n ly w itn esse s, itm u st be c o n tr ad ict ed in m aterial p arti cu lars by cr edi bl e w i tnes s orw i tnes s es, an d the C our ti s of the opi ni on thatthe m edi cal per s onnel thatopi ned thati tw oul d be unl i kel y f orM r . W hi t e t o have s u f f e r e d th e i n

j u r i e s l i k e h e h a s s u f

f e r e d a n d t o h a v e g o t t e n b a c k i n t o th a tATV w oul d have be en unl i kel y contr adi ct s the def endant ’ s ver s i on of

w hat happene d and the mat er i al part i cul ar s . Forthatr eas on, the C our ti s compel l ed t o o verrule the d efendan t ’s m oti on t o d i sm i ss. ¶29. T hi s Courtha s r ecogni zed the narr ow c ont exti n w hi ch W eat hers by appl i es . I n B erry
v. S ta te , 455 So. 2d 774, 776 ( M i s s . 1984) , thi s C ou rtst at ed “thati ti s a r ar e ca s e w hi ch
m ee ts th e re q u ir em en ts of W eat hers by
. ” W

eat hers by d id n o t ap p ly

. . . i n T h o rn h ill v. S ta te , 5 6 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 3 0 -3 2 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 ), [ over r ul ed on othergr ounds by B u sh v. S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 4 n .2 ( M is s . 2 0 0 5 )], w here defenda nt’ s sel f- defense t heo ry w as er od ed b y the f act s that ( 1) no g l ass w as foun d un dert he vi ct i m butw as onl y on t op of hi m and t o hi s s i de, s om ew hatunder m i ni ng the s t or y thatthe vi ct i m had br oken the w i ndow i n the doorhi m s el f

; ( 2) the hamm erw as notf ound gr i pped i n the vi ct i m ’ s hand and n o p ri n ts w ere o n it ; ( 3 ) the re w as n o g lass o n the v ict im ’s bo o ts; an d , (4) the re w e re n o c u ts o n th e v ic tim ’s h a n d s o r a rm s . . . . He ide l v. S ta te , 5 8 7 S o . 2 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 3 0
. W eat hers by d o es n o t req u ir e the S tat e to o ffe r e v id e n c e ex clud ing the d efe n d an t’ s th e o ry fro m th e re a lm o f p o ss ib ili ty ; rath e r, th e S tate m u st o ffe r e v id e n c e th a t su b sta n tially
c o n tr a d ic ts th e m a te ri a l p a rt ic u la rs o f th e d e fe n d a n t’ s v e rs io n o f t h e in c id e n t. W eat hers by , 147 So. at48 2. In m aking thi s deci s i on, thi s C our tm us t“det erm i ne w hetherther e w as
cr edi bl e evi dence thatco nt r adi ct ed [ the def endant ’ s ] acc ountof

the [ i nci dent ]
. ” W

il s on v. S ta te , 9 5 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 4 , 1 0 4 8 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).

### 15

¶31. I n W

eat hers by , the St at e pr es ent ed evi dence that , i f cr edi bl e, w oul d have cr eat ed an is s u e fo r th e ju ry to d e c id e . W eat hers by , 147 So. at482. A s art i cul at ed i n W eat hers by , t he St at e’ s evi dence di d contr adi ctthe def endant ’ s theory aboutw her e the def endantw as al l eged to h a v e b e e n sta n d in g d u rin g th e in c id e n t: Th e o n l y d i s t i n c tc o n tr a d i c t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s v e r s i o n o f

t h e k i l l i n g wa s s o me evi dence by the s t at e thatthe s hotw entthr ough s om e gr ow i ng c orn i n s uch a m anneras t o have s how n t hatthe def endantcoul d nothave bee n atthe poi nt w her e he s ai d he s t ood and the dec eas ed atthe po i ntw her e appe l l antpl ace d hi m . O therw i tnes s es fort he st at e corr obor at ed i n thi s part i cul arthe l ocat i ons assi st ed b y the ap p el l ant. A s w e see i t , un der this part i cularrecor d, these d iffe re n c e s a re in d e tail a n d n o t i n co n tro lli n g su b sta n c e . T h e ap p e llan t an d h is w i f e, part i cul ar l y the l att er , appea r ed t o ha ve been c ons i der abl y f r i ght ened a s th e d e c e a se d , w h o h a d a lre a d y b e e n to th e h o m e o f a p p e llan t a fe w m o m e n ts pr evi ous l y, atw hi ch t i m e he thr eat ened both of them w i th death.
. . . T hus , as w oul d be e xpect ed, ther e . . . ar e s om e mi nordi s cr epanc i es i n the t es t i m ony of the hus band and w i f

e, w hi ch r atherstr engthens t hei rt es t i m ony t han w eake ns i t , beca us e thi s ev i dences the abs ence of a pr evi ous l y pr epar ed and a gr eed sto ry o n th e ir p a rt. I d . T he St at e’ s evi dence did no ts ubs t ant i al l y contr adi ctthe def endant s ’ ver s i on of

t he i nci dent , beca us e thi s evi dence di d notcontr adi ctthe def endant s ’ ver s i on of

even t s i n a
m e a n in g fu l w a y – th a t is, th is e v id e n c e p o in ted to o n ly “ m in o r d isc re p a n c ies ” in d e tail, ea sily
e x p la in e d b y th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ o b v io u s s ta te o f f e a r. I d . A ccor di ngl y, the C our ti n W eat hers by di d notf i nd the St at e’ s evi dence t o “s ubs t ant i al l y contr adi c[ t ] ” the def endant s ’ ver s i on of the in c id e n t, a n d th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ v e rs io n o f t h e e v e n ts h a d to b e re g a rd e d a s tru e . I d . ¶32. U nl i ke i n W

eat hers by , the St at e’ s evi dence i n t he r ecor d bef or e thi s C our tt oday does notpoi nts i m pl y t o “di f f er ence s . . . i n det ai l ” butt o di f f er ence s i n “contr ol l i ng s ubs t ance ” th a t a re n o t c o n s is te n t w ith B o o k e r’ s v e rs io n o f t h e in c id e n t. I d . Speci f i cal l y, evi dence i n t he

### 16

r ecor d s uppor t s the St at e’ s theory t hatB ookeratt acke d W hi t e w hi l e W hi t e w as s eat ed i n the R h in o . ¶3 3
. P a th o lo g ist D r. S tev e n H a y n e tes ti fie d fo r th e p ro se c u tio n th a t, w h ile W h ite “pos s i bl y” coul d hav e r ece i ved s uch a be at i ng and then w al ked t o the R hi no, thatthi s w as
very unl i kel y: [ D ef ens e] : I s i tpos s i bl e f

orM r . W hi t e t o ha ve r ece i ved a bl ow orbl ow s and re c e iv e d a c o n c u ss io n a n d still rem a in e d o n h is fe e t an d g o tten b a c k in to h is vehi cl e? [ D r. H ayne] : I c o u ld n ’t ex c lu d e tha t, C o u n se lo r, b u t I think tha tw ou ld b e very u n like ly
. In th ese typ e o f i n juri es, I w o u ld ex p ec t th e p erso n to su ffer a c o n c u ss io n , w h ich y o u c a n n o t se e m e d ica lly ; b u t sta tistica lly , it ’s f ar m ore pr obabl e thatthe i ndi vi dual suf f er ed a conc us s i on w hi ch by de f i ni t i on a person loses consci ou sness . . .

. . . . [ D ef ens e] : So he coul d have r ece i ved a concus s i on, been outon hi s f eet , not gone dow n, r egai ned cons ci ous nes s , and gott en i n hi s vehi cl e? [ D r. H ayne] : I t w o u ld b e p o s s ib le , C o u n s e lo r. I c o u ld n ’t e x c lu d e th a t. [ D ef ens e] : Y ou coul d notexcl ude that , coul d you? [ D r. H ayne] : B u t I w o u ld n o t fa v o r th a t a t a ll
.

### The di ss ent takes theposi ti on that Dr . Hayne admitte d, no t stated, o n cro ss- 9 

### examination that Booker ’s ve rs ion of eve nts wa s a “di stinc t poss ibi li ty. ” The ex change betw een d efense co un sel andDr. H ayn e, ho wev er, was amb igu ou s: [De fe nseAtt orne y] : Andd o yo u believ e inth is particu lar case that M r. Wh ite wo uldhav e hada moment of unco nscio usn ess? [Dr . Hayne ] : Yes, sir. [De fe nseAtt orne y] : And then be en c onsc ious aga in? [Dr . Hayne ] : Th at’s a po ssibility , Co un selor. He coul d haveremaine d un con sciou s. Th at is certa inly a distin ct po ssibility. [De fe nseAtt orne y] : But it ’s al so a dis tinct poss ibi li ty hecoul d havere gained con sciou sness? [Dr . Hayne ] : Th at’s po ssible , Co un selor, fo r a verysho rt perio d o f time. (Em phas is a dded. ) What

i s cr yst alc le ar

i s that Dr. Hayne maint ained that thes ce nario put forthbyBo ok er was v ery unlik ely an d n ot to be fav oredbasedonthe facts o f the case. Essentially; w itho ut material qualificatio n; in the main; in sub stance; materially; in 10 

### a sub stantial manner. Blacks ’sLaw Dic ti onary 326 (6th ed. 1990). To disp ro v e. T o pro ve a fact co ntraryto what h as beenasserted b y a w itness. 11 

### Black’ s Law Dictionar

y 14 28 -29 (6thed. 1 99 0).

17 ( E mp h a s i s a d d e d
. ) Dr
. Ha y n e t e s t i f i e d t h a tW h i t e p o s s i b l y c o u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d s u c h b l o ws 9 and got t en back i nt o the R hi no; how ever , ba s ed on the phys i cal f act s of thi s c as e, D r . H ayne
a d d e d th a t h e “ w o u ld n o t fa v o r th a t a t a ll
. ” ( E m phas i s added. ) T hi s expertt es t i m ony p rov ided that B o o k er’s v ersion o f th e e v en ts w as “ v ery u n li k ely.” A cc o rdin g ly, th is ex p ert test im o n y , ad m issi b le u n d er o u r rules o f ev iden ce , su b stan ti all y co n tr ad ict ed B o o k er’s 10 11
ver s i on of

the i nci dentand cr eat ed a que s t i on f orthe j ury t o r es ol ve. ¶3 4
. P h o tog rap h s o f the crim e sc e n e re c eive d into ev iden ce an d the loca ti o n o f W h it e’s g lasses al so subst an ti all y co n tr ad ict ed B o o k er’s v ersion o f th e inc iden t. W h it e’s g lasses w ere f ound on the county r oad adj ace ntto t he R hino. Phot os of the R hi no r evea l thati thad no
w ind o w s, m ak ing itrea so n ab le t o co n clud e tha t i f B o o k er h ad stru ck W h it e’s h ea d on th e left

### Booker tes ti fi ed that he coul d not rem em ber whether Whit e had bee n wearing a hat 12 

### at the time o f the in cident. 18 s i de, thatW hi t e’ s gl as s es w oul d have be en pr opel l ed outof the R hi no’ s ri ghtpas s engers i de and ont o t he adj ace ntcount y roa d. W hi l e t hi s C our tre cogni zes t hatno cr i m e sc ene i s per f ect and thatm edi cal i nt ervent i on had bee n per f or m ed on W hi t e bef

or e a cr i m e s cene had bee n
es t abl i s hed, t he l ocat i on of the gl as s es , adj ace ntt o the R hi no, w as cons i s t entw i th a f i ndi ng th a t B o o k e r h a d a ttac k e d W h ite in th e R h in o a n d , im p o rta n tly , als o w a s in c o n sis ten t w ith B o o k e r’s v e rsio n o f th e in c id e n t. ¶35. M or eover , t he j ury re as onabl y coul d have found t hatt he l ocat i on of W hi t e’ s haton th e flo o r o f th e p a s s e n g e r s id e o f th e R h in o c o n tra d icte d B o o k e r’s v e rsio n o f th e in c id e n t. W h ite’s so n tes tified th a t W h ite ty p ica lly w o re a h a t a n d w a s w e a rin g o n e w h e n h e w e n t to
se e B o o k e r im m e d iate ly b e fo re th e fa tal a lterc a tio n . B o o k e r sta ted th a t he h a d stru c k W h ite 12 thr ee t i m es i n t he head af t erW hi t e had e xi t ed the R hi no. T he l ocat i on of the hati ns i de the R hi no di r ect l y contr adi ct s B oo ker’ s versi on of the i nci dent– namel y thatW hi t e eve rhad exi t ed the R hi no t o e ngage i n the al t er cat i on. I f W hi t e had be en out s i de the R hi no w hen the al t er cat i on occurr ed, W hi t e’ s ha t , more l i kel y than not , w oul d have be en knocke d of f out s i de th e R h in o . A fte r re c e iv in g th re e b lo w s to th e h e a d , c o m m o n s e n se d icta tes th a t W h ite w o u ld
no thav e had the w herew i thal t o p ut the h at ba ck o n h i s head b efor e, as B oo ker al l eges, W hi t e s atback dow n i n t he R hi no. ¶36. O ut s i de the j ury’ s pr es ence a nd upon obj ect i on t o the St at e’ s el i ci t i ng t es t i m ony f r om W h it e’s so n ab o u t th e h at i n the R h ino (ba sed o n an all eg ed d isco v ery v iolati o n ), B o o k er’s defense at t orney st at ed thatthis ph ysi cal evidence co ntr adict ed B oo ker’ s vers i on of even t s:

### 19

[ D ef ens e A t t orney ] : Y es , s i r . T he def ens e w oul d obj ect , your H onor , on t he b asis o f th e S tat e trying to elici t t esti m o n y from this w itn ess tha t h is f athe r’s cap w as f ound i ns i de the R hi no f

orpurpos es of

el i ci t i ng f

r om thi s w i tnes s that the fa ther a lw ay s w o re a ca p to try to p h y sicall y co n tr ad ictthe d efe n d an t’ s v e rs io n o f t h e e v e n ts . . . . [C o u rt] : T e ll m e h o w th a t co n tra d ic ts th e d e fe n d a n t’s v e rsio n o f h o w it occurr ed. T hatthey f

ound t he hati n the R hi no? [ D ef ens e A t t orney] : I f

thi s w i tnes s i s goi ng t o cl ai m daddy al w ays w or e a c ap and he ne vert ook the cap of f
. . . [ t ] hen the f

actthatt he hati s out s i de ornot out s i de of

the R hi no w oul d phys i cal l y contr adi ctthe def endant ’ s ve r s i on of

the event s , ther ef

or e, bei ng in m y op i ni on, the mosti m por t antpi ece of phys i cal e v id e n c e th e S ta te o f M is s is s ip p i c o u ld h a v e . . . . ¶37. I n s um , the degr ee and s ever i ty of the i nj ur i es i nfl i ct ed u po n W hit e dis count any i nf er ence t hatthe al t er cat i on betw een Bookerand W hi t e amount ed t o no m ore t han “a gar den- var i ety f

i s t - f i ght
. ” A l s o, the f

actthatthe vi ct i m w as f ound unc ons ci ous i n hi s R hi no
o n B o o k er’s p rop erty; th e lo c a tio n o f th e v ict im ’s glasse s; an d the lo ca ti o n o f th e v ict im ’s h a t, co n sid e re d , tog e th e r, su b sta n tially c o n tra d ict B o o k e r’s v e rsio n o f th e in c id e n t. CO NC L US I ON ¶38. T he l earned tr i al j udge corr ect l y f ound the W

eathers by rul e t o be i nappl i cabl e and p rop erly p e rm itted th is case to g o to the jury
. H av ing co n side red the re st of B o o k er’s
ar gum ent s bef

or e the C ou r tof

A ppeal s and f

ound them t o be w i thoutm er i t , w e adoptt he C our tof A ppeal s ’ r eas oni ng. A ccor di ngl y, w e af f i r m the C our tof

A ppeal s ’ j udgm ent , w hi ch affirm ed the tr ial co u rt ’s j u d g m en t of co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e fo r th e c ri m e o f m an slau g h ter. ¶ 3 9
. C O N V I C T I O N O F M A N SL A U G H T E R A N D SE N T E N C E O F T W E N T Y ( 20) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S W I TH TEN ( 1 0 ) YEARS S USP ENDED, TEN ( 1 0 ) YEARS TO S ERVE AND FI VE ( 5 ) YEARS OF P OST- RELEAS E S UPERVI S I ON , W I TH CO NDI TI ON S , AFF I RM ED
.

### 20

W AL LE R, C. J . , RAN DOLP H, LA M AR AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. KI TCHEN S, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY DI CK I NS ON , P . J . , AN D C HA ND L E R, J . KI NG , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 4 0
. B e c a u se C h a d B o o k e r w a s e n tit led to a d ire c ted v e rd ict o f a c q u itt a l, I d iss e n t. ¶41. I n W

e a th e rs b y v. S ta te , 1 4 7 S o . 4 8 1 , 4 8 2 (M iss . 1 9 3 3 ), th is C o u rt h e ld th a t: [ i ] thas been f

ors om e t i m e the es t abl i s hed rule i n t hi s s t at e thatw her e the def endantort he defe ndant ’ s w i tnes s es ar e the onl y eyew i tnes s es t o the ho m i ci de, t heirversi on , i f r easona ble, m ustbe acc epted as true, un l ess s ubs t ant i al l y contr adi ct ed i n m at eri al part i cul ar s by a cr edi bl e w i tnes s or w i tnes s es f

orthe s t at e, orby the phys i cal f act s orby the fact s of

comm on k n o w le d g e . ¶42. I n a r ece ntdeci s i on, thi s C our tacknow l edged that“[ t ] he W eat hers by rul e i s al i ve and
w el l a nd l i vi ng i n the courtr oom s of thi s s t at e. ” J

o h n so n v . S ta te , 98 7 S o. 2d 42 0, 42 4 (M i ss. 20 08 ) ( qu ot i ng He ide l v. S ta te , 587 So. 2d 835, 839 ( M i s s . 1991) )
. “The W eat hers by p ri n c ip le is n o t to b e c a s u a lly a p p lie d , b u t w h e n th e fa c ts w a rr a n t, it b e c o m e s e ff ic a c io u s .” D e w v. S ta te , 309 So. 2d 857, 857 ( M i s s . 1975) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed)
. M or eover , “[ w ] her e the W eat hers by rul e appl i es and t he def endant ’ s ver s i on af

f or ds an absol ut e l egal def ens e, t he def endanti s ent i t l ed t o a di r ect ed ver di ctof acqui t t al
. ” G re e n v. S ta te , 631 So. 2d 167, 174 ( M i s s . 1994) ( ci t i ng B la n ks v. S ta te , 5 4 7 S o . 2 d 2 9 , 3 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )). H o w ev er, “w h ere the def endant ’ s s t ory i s m at er i al l y contr adi ct ed, the W eat hers by rul e has no appl i cat i on and the mat t erof

convi ct i on ver s us acqui t t al becomes a ques t i on f orthe j ury. ” I

d. “ W eat hers by

. . . i s nothi ng more than a part i cul ar i zed ver s i on of ourgener al s t andar ds acc or di ng t o w hi ch
court s m us tdeci de w het heri n a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on the ac cus ed i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm ent

### 21

of acq uit t al as a mat t erof l aw . ” J o h n so n v. S ta te , 987 So. 2d at425 ( quot i ng Ja c ks on v. S ta te , 5 5 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 , 1 3 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )). ¶43. I n D ew , th e a c c u s e d w a s t r ie d fo r t h e m u rd e r o f h is w if e . D ew , 309 So. 2d at857. D e w w a s c o n v icte d o f m a n sla u g h ter a n d se n ten c e d to se rv e e ig h t y e a rs in th e sta te p e n ite n tia ry . I

d. A tt r i al , D ew t es t i f

i ed thatno otheri ndi vi dual had bee n pr es entw hen he
a c c id e n ta lly s h o t a n d fa ta lly w o u n d e d h is w if e . I d. D e w w a s th e o n ly p e rso n to tes tify to th e e v e n ts le a d in g u p to h is w if e ’s d e m is e . I

d. at 8 5 8
. H e sa id tha t h e w a s in b e d w h e n h is
w i fe r et urned hom e f

r om an out i ng w i th f

r i ends , and thathe bel i eved s he w as i nt oxi cat ed. I d . D ew s ai d thathi s w i f e w as argum ent at i ve and thats he had s truck hi m s ever al t i m es d u ri n g th e c o n fr o n ta tio n . I d . B eca us e of

hi s w i f e’ s behavi or , D ew s ai d thathe had in s tr u c te d h e r t o g o to h e r m o th e r’ s h o m e u n til th e n e x t m o rn in g . I d. She r ef

us ed and att empt ed t o s tr i ke D ew agai n. H e bl ocked the bl ow , and s he s ei zed hi m b y t he neck and
s c ra tc h e d h im
. I

d. D ew sai d t hathe had be en abl e t o pus h heraw ay, butthats he then had p ic k e d u p a p is to l th a t w a s ly in g o n th e n ig h t st a n d a n d th re a te n e d to k ill h im
. I d . D ur i ng t he e ns ui ng s trug gl e o ve rthe g un , i ta c c i de nt a l l y di s c ha r ge d, a c c or di ng t o D e w , a nd t he b u lle t s tr u c k h is w if

e . I d. D ew s ai d thathe i m m edi at el y had ca l l ed f oran ambul ance and
n o tif ie d th e s h e ri ff’s d e p a rt m e n t o f w h a t h a d tr a n s p ir e d
. I d. ¶44. O n appea l , thi s C our tr ever s ed D ew ’s co nv i ct i on an d sent ence, holdi ng t hat the W eat hers by ru le a p p lied to h is c a se , tha t D e w ’s te stim o n y h a d n o t b e e n “ c o n tro v e rte d in its
m at er i al part i cul ar s by e i therthe phys i cal f act s orthos e of

c om m on know l edge, ” thatthe tr i al
co u rth ad erred w h en ith ad n o t sus tai n ed D ew ’s m o ti o n fo r a d ir ec ted v erd ict , an d this C o u rt
r e n d e r e d j u d g me n tf

o rDe w.

### 22

¶45. M or e r ece nt l y, i n Johnson , the acc us ed had been vi s i t i ng thi s s t at e f or the f uner al of hi s gr andmot herw hen he a nd s ever al otheri ndi vi dual s w er e as ked to hel p J ohns on’ s aunt
m o v e o u t o f

h e ra p a rt m e n t c o m p le x . Johnson , 987 So. 2d at423. W hi l e J ohns on w as h e lp in g h is a u n t m o v e , D e n n is D a v is in iti a ted se v e ra l co n fro n tatio n s w ith Jo h n so n p rio r to th e a lte rc a tio n th a t r e s u lte d in D a v is ’s d e a th
. I d . Jo h n so n test if

ied th a t he an d D av is’ s gi r l f r i end had be en hel pi ng hi s auntm ove outof her apart m ent, and thatw hen they had f i ni s hed pac ki ng t he apa r t m ent ’ s cont ent s , J ohns on and D avi s ’ s gi rl fr i end had begun
w a lk in g to a c o n v e n ie n c e s to re to p u rc h a s e b e e r. I d . J ohnson sai d t hat he di d notf eel comfort abl e w al king t o the conve ni ence s t or e i n the dark f ol l ow i ng the eve nt s thathad tr a n s p ir e d w ith D a v is th ro u g h o u t th e d a y , s o h e d e c id e d to c a rr y a k n if e w ith h im
. I

d. Jo h n so n said that, as h e a n d D av is’ s g ir lf ri en d w ere w alkin g to the store, D av is cam e tow ard th e m q u ic k ly a n d str u c k th e w o m a n in th e fa c e w ith a d a rk o b je c t. I d. J ohns on s ai d thathe pl ed w i th D avi s nott o hi tthe w om an aga i n and then s t epped betw een D avi s and the w om an. I d. A t th a t tim e , th e w o m a n w a lk e d a w a y fr o m J o h n s o n a n d D a v is
. I d. J ohns on t es t i f

i ed thatD avi s then had made a s w i ngi ng m ot i on t ow ar d hi m w i th a dark w eapon i n hi s hand. I d. In re s p o n s e , Jo h n s o n sta b b e d D a v is o n e tim e . I d . at 4 2 4
. T h e w o m an h ad fl ed a sh o rt d is ta n c e a w a y fr o m J o h n s o n a n d D a v is a n d d id n o t s e e th e a lte rc a tio n . I d. ¶ 4 6
. F o llo w in g th e sta b b in g , Jo h n so n a p p ro a c h e d a n e a rb y re sid e n c e to a sk th e o c c u p a n ts to c a ll 9 1 1 , b u t h e re c e iv e d n o re s p o n s e fr o m th e o c c u p a n ts o f t h a t r e s id e n c e . I d. J ohns on th e n w e n t to h is a u n t’ s a p a rt m e n t a n d c a lle d 9 1 1 , se e k in g h e lp fo r D a v is
. I d. J ohns on w as in d ic te d fo r t h e m u rd e r o f D a v is
. I d . J ohns on w as convi ct ed of m ans l aught erand s ent ence d to s e rv e tw e n ty y e a rs in th e c u s to d y o f t h e D e p a rt m e n t o f C o rr e c tio n s . I d. J ohns on f

i l ed a

### 23

pos t - tr i al m ot i on fora new t r i al or a j udgm entof ac qui t t al not w i ths t andi ng t he ver di ct , w hi ch
w a s d e n ie d
. I

d. ¶4 7. O n appeal , t hi s C our thel d t hat“Johns on’ s r e a s on a bl e e ye w i tne s s a c c ount , not
s ubs t ant i al l y contr adi ct ed i n m at er i al part i cul ar s , coupl ed w i th the per t i nentci r cumst ance s
w hi ch corr obor at ed i t. . . , col l ect i vel y sus t ai n a suf f i ci entcas e of

s el f
- def ens e. ” I d. at426 ( ci t i ng W eat hers by , 147 So. at482)
. A ccor di ngl y, J ohns on’ s ver s i on of event s w as r equi r ed t o be ac cept ed as true, an d i tpr ovi ded an a bs ol ut e l egal def ens e t o ei therm ur deror
m a n s la u g h te r. I

d. ( ci t i ng W

eat hers by , 1 4 7 S o . at 4 8 2 ; G r een , 63 1 S o . 2d at 17 4 ). F u rth er, havi ng t aken “the t r ans cr i ptof the evi dence by the f ourcorner s , . . . the W

eat hers by ru le is cl ear l y appl i cabl e, as the nec es s ary el ement s f orei thera murde rorm ans l aught erconvi ct i on
w ere l acking
. . . . J ohns on w as ent i t l ed t o a di r ect ed ver di ctof acqui t t al
. ” I

d. ( ci t i ng Ho u sto n v. S ta te , 7 8 S o . 1 8 2 , 1 8 3 (M iss . 1 9 1 8 ); B lanks , 5 4 7 S o . 2 d a t 3 3 ). ¶ 4 8
. C h a d B o o k e r, lik e D e w a n d Jo h n so n , w a s th e o n ly liv in g w itn e ss to th e h o m icid e in q u esti o n . In a d d it ion to B o o k er’s testi m o n y , n u m ero u s w itn esse s testi fi ed ab o u t B o o k er’s demeanorfr om M ar ch 10 t o M ar ch 12, 2007, and ot herw i tnes s es t es t i f i ed t hatB ookerhad a good r eput at i on f

orver aci ty and pea cef

ul nes s w i thi n the comm uni ty. ¶49. T yl er M edl i n, B ooker ’ s pas s enger i n the For d M us t ang on M ar ch 10, 2007, t es t i f i ed thatB ookerw as cal m t hr oughoutt he ear l i erexchange bet w een D avi d W hi t e and Bookeron th a t d a y , an d th a t B o o k e r h a d n o t th re a ten e d W h ite , th a t h e h a d n o t ra ise d h is v o ice to W hi t e, and thathe had t ol d W hi t e t o cal l the l aw i f ther e w as a pr obl em w i th hi s r at e of
s peed.

### 24

¶ 5 0
. R ick e y T h ra sh e r, th e m a n a g e r o f th e D isc o u n t A u to P a rts sto re in R ip ley , M iss iss ip p i, te s tif ie d th a t B o o k e r h a d c o m e in to th e s to re o n M a rc h 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , a t a p p ro x im a te ly 4 :3 0 p .m ., to ta lk a b o u t a p a in t p ro b lem o n a 1 9 6 0 s m o d e l F o rd p ick u p tru c k . T h ra sh e r sa id th a t th e ir
conver s at i on had dri f

t ed f r om B ooker ’ s pai ntpr obl em t o a gene r al conver s at i on about“how y o u g e t alo n g w ith fo lk s.” T h ra sh e r sa id th a t h e a n d B o o k e r h a d b e g u n to talk a b o u t a nei ghborof

B ooker ’ s w ho ha d f

l agged Bookerdow n overthe w eeke nd beca us e the nei ghbor h a d th o u g h t h e w a s tra v e lin g too fas t an d tha t th e v e h icle w a s to o lou d
. B o o k e r n e v e r to ld T hr as herthatthe nei ghborof w hom he spoke w as D avi d W hi t e. T hr as hers ai d thatB ooker had mai nt ai ned a pl eas antdemeanordur i ng thei rconver s at i on, an d thatB ookernever appea r ed ups etand neve rs poke i l l of the nei ghbor
. T hr as herf ur thert es t i f

i ed thathe had know n B ookerappr oxi m at el y tw enty year s , and t hatB ookerw as an hones tm an and a good
cus t om er . T hr as heral s o t es t i f i ed t hatB ookerhad a good re put at i on f ort el l i ng the truth and that h e h ad n ev er h ea rd a n y o n e sp ea k n eg ati v ely o f B o o k er. ¶51. A f

t erl eavi ng the aut o pa r t s s t or e, Bookerw enta cr os s the s tr eett o Sout hern D i s count M ot or s t o s ee Phi l l i p N ance. B ookert es t i f i ed thathe and N ance w er e f r i ends and thathe l ooked up t o N ance . B ookers ai d thathe had e xpr es s ed t o N ance thathe di d notunder s t and
w hy W hi t e had bec om e so ups etabouthi m on Satur day. N ance gave a s t at ementt o O f f i cer J ohn H i l l hous e on M ay 3, 2007. Pr i ort o tr i al , N ance di ed. A ttr i al , O f f i cerH i l l hous e r ead N ance ’ s s t at ementi nt o t he r ecor d. I n hi s st at ement , N ance sai d t hatB ookerhad com e over t o s how hi m the or ange pa i ntj ob on the For d pi ckup truck, a nd thathe and Bookerhad t al ked aboutthe truck and the s uperb pai ntj obs B ookerw as capa bl e of pr oduci ng. N ance s ai d that
a s B o o k e r w a s le a v in g , h e m e n tio n e d th a t W h ite h a d fla g g e d h im d o w n a n d re p rim a n d e d h im

### 25

f ordri vi ng t oo fa s t , and t hatB ookerw as puzzl ed aboutw hy W hi t e w oul d have be en s o ups et abouthi s dr i vi ng. N ance s ai d thatB ookerm ade no c om m ent s aboutgett i ng even w i th W hi t e,
a n d h e n e v e r t h re a te n e d to h a rm W h ite
. ¶52. B ooker t es t i f

i ed that af

t er he l ef t N ance ’ s us ed- aut om obi l e deal er s hi p on M ar ch 12, 2007, he dr ove the or ang e For d pi ckup truck t o hi s hom e, parked i tunderhi s carpor t , t hen dr ove hi s r ed C hevr ol etZ
- 71 pi ckup truck f r om hi s hous e t o hi s s hop. Bookers ai d that , af t er he had par ked h i s C hevr ol etpi ckup truck athi s s hop, he w entt o hi s bl ue N i s s an “ga rbage truck” thatw as parked j us tout s i de the gat e t o his sho p. B ookers ai d thathe had be gun pi cki ng up garbage and put t i ng i ti nt o the back of the N i s s an truck. W hi l e B ookerw as pi cki ng up garbage, he s aw D avi d and K ei th W hi t e dr i vi ng on C ounty R oad 813. W hen he
s aw t he W hi t es appr oachi ng, he sai d he “s poke, ” meani ng thathe had w aved hi s hand i n the ai ras the W hi t es ’ vehi cl e appr oache d hi m . B ookers ai d thatK ei th W hi t e s poke bac k by
w avi ng hi s hand as they dr ove pas tB ooker
. K ei th t es t i f i ed thatboth he and h i s f atherhad
s p o k e n to B o o k e r a s th e y h a d d ri v e n p a s t h im o n C o u n ty R o a d 8 1 3
. ¶53. B ooker s ai d that , s oon af t er the W hi t es had pas s ed hi m on C ounty R oad 813, he had
s een W hi t e “c om i ng i n re al f as ti n hi s Y amaha R hi no, ” and thathe had be en conf us ed about
w hy W hi t e w as comi ng ont o hi s pr operty. B ookersai d t hatW hi t e parked the R hi no neart he N iss a n tru c k , tur n e d th e R h in o o ff, g o t o u t o f th e R h in o , an d sa id “ H e y , I g o t [t o ] t a lk to yo u. ” B oo ker r espon ded by sayi ng “M r. W hit e, I don ’tw ant any p robl em s w i th y ou . Just l e a v e . L e a v e m y p r o p e r ty . I d o n ’ twa n ta n y p r o b l e ms wi th y o u . ” W h i t e s a i d , “ [ h ] e l l n a w. Y ou’ re going t o t al k t o m e. ” B ookers ai d that“[ W hi t e] r eac hed up t o gr ab my col l ar , and
w h e n h e d id , h e w e n t to p u n c h m e w ith h is o th e r h a n d ; a n d I c a u g h t h is w rist a n d tw iste d it

### 26

. . . an d I p u n c h e d h im th re e tim e s a n d tu rn e d h im lo o se .” B o o k e r sa id th a t “I tu rn e d h im l oos e and he s tum bl ed and I r emem berhi m st andi ng on hi s f eetand goi ng t o hi s R hi no t o get back on i t , and I turned ar ound a nd I s t art ed w al ki ng dow n the r oad bec aus e I gots car ed and
w onder ed w hatw as f

i xi ng t o ha ppen next . I w as ups et . ” B ookers ai d thathe had nottr i ed t o hur tW hi t e; r ather , he had be en t ryi ng to defend hi m s el f
. O nce Bookerhad l earned of W hit e’s i njur i es, he v olunt ari l y turned him sel f i n to T i pp ah C ou nty sher i ff’s dep uti es. ¶ 5 4
. Bo o k e ra n d W h i t e we r e th e o n l y p e o p l e p r e s e n ta tth e t i me o f th e a l t e r c a t i o n . No
o ther tri al w itn ess w as a b le t o test if y reg ard ing the e v en ts th at ha d o cc u rred o u tsi d e B o o k er’s
s hop on the eveni ng of M ar ch 12, 2007. A ddi t i onal l y, B ookerand W hi t e exhi bi t ed i nj ur i es th a twe r e c o n s i s t e n twi th Bo o k e r ’ s t e s t i mo n y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Bo o k e r ’ s ha n d h a d b e c o me
s w ol l en and w as begi nni ng t o brui s e atthe t i m e he ga ve his st at ement , and W hi t e had a n injury o n h is r igh t han d that w a s c o n sis tent w ith h is ha v ing p u n ch ed so m eo n e. M o reo v er, the St at e of

f er ed the t es t i m ony of

D r . St even H ayne, a pathol ogi s t , t o sup po rtit s theory of the ca s e; how ever , the w i tnes s admi t t ed thatB ooker ’ s ver s i on of event s coul d notbe excl uded, an d i n f

a c tw a s a “ di s t i nc tpo s s i bi l i ty. ” The f ol l owi ng e xc ha ng e t oo k p l a ce betw een the St at e and D r . H ayne: St at e: B as ed on yourobs ervat i on of M r . W hi t e, w oul d you expec tthat a p er s on i n a s t andi ng pos i t i on w ho r ece i ved thi s amount of f or ce t o the head co uld r emai n s t andi ng w hen r ece i vi ng that l i ck? Ha y n e : I two u l d b e u n l i k e l y . . . u n l e s s h e wa s s u p p o r t e d b y s o me

m eans . I f

ther e’ s m or e than one bl ow , t hen I w oul d expec tthe per s on t o f

al l unl es s s uppor t ed. H ow ever, the follow ing ex ch an g e o cc u rred b etw ee n d efe n se c ou nsel and D r. H ayn e on cross exami nat i on:

### 27

D efe n se: . . . [M ] y qu esti o n t o yo u i s th is: If w e h av e testi m o n y that M r. W hi t e gotoutof hi s vehi cl e and a ccos t ed the def endant , gr abbed h im a n d sw u n g a t th e d e fe n d a n t, an d th e d e fe n d a n t c a u g h t h is hand, the s w i ng by M r . W hi t e, and he gr abbed M r . W hi t e and pul l ed hi m t o hi m and hi thi m thr ee t i m es and r el eas ed hi m , and thatM r . W hi t e di d notgo dow n butM r . W hi t e w entback a nd goti n hi s vehi cl e, yo u can’tcontr adi ctthatthatoccurr ed, can yo u, i f that’ s w hat the p roof s ho w s? H ayne: I cannotexcl ude that , C ou nsel or , butagai n, I w oul d notf avor thats cena r i o. D ef ens e: B utyou w er en’ tther e, w er e you? H ay n e: N o , sir
. D ef ens e: O kay. A nd yourm edi cal f i ndi ngs don’ texcl ude that , do they? H a y n e : T h e y d o n o t, bu t th e y w o u ld lea n stro n g ly a g a in st it. D ef ens e: B utyou can’ ts w earunderoath i tdi dn’ thappen, can you? H a y n e : N o , I ca n n o t d o th a t. D ef ens e: A nd peopl e w ho have ha d concus si on s have w al ked ar ound

bef or e l i ke i n f

ootbal l , hi gh s chool f

ootbal l , f ori ns t ance ? H ay n e: T h ey ha v e, b u t b y de fi n it ion , th ey ’re go ing t o ha v e a m o m en tary

per i od of uncons ci ous nes s by def i ni t i on. D e fe n se : A n d y o u b e liev e in th is p a rticu lar c a se th a t M r. W h ite w o u ld

hav e had a m om ent of

un con sci ou sness? H ay n e: Y es, si r. D ef ens e: A nd then bee n cons ci ous agai n? H ayne: T hat ’ s a pos s i bi l i ty, C ouns el or . H e coul d have r emai ned

uncons ci ous . T hati s cert ai nl y a di s t i nctpos s i bi l i ty. D ef ens e: B uti t ’ s al s o a di s t i nctpos s i bi l i ty he coul d have r egai ned

con sci ou sness? H ayne: T hat ’ s pos s i bl e, C ouns el or , f ora very s hor tper i od of t i m e. D e fe n se : R ig h t. R e g a in e d lu c id n e ss , co rre c t? H ayn e: I used the term l ucid, yes. D ef ens e: Y es , s i r . Y ou f ound an i nj ury on M r . W hi t e? H ayne: I f

ound a brui s e l ocat ed on the bac k of the thi r d fi ng erof

the r i ghthand.

. . . De f e n s e : W o u l d th a tb e c o n s i s t e n twi th th r o wi n g a b l o w? H ay n e: Itw o u ld b e c o n sist en t w ith it , C o u n selo r. D ef ens e: A nd you bel i eve thatthati nj ury occurr ed cl os e i n t i m e? H ay n e: I w o u ld ru le i t ato r abo u t the ti m e o f de ath. O f co u rse, th ere are

otherexpl anat i ons f

orthati nj ury t oo. D ef ens e: S ure. B utyou coul dn’ te xcl ude i ta s M r . W hi t e thr ow i ng a

punch, coul d you? H ay n e: I co u ld n o t, sir
.

### 28

¶55. A tt r i al , B ookeraddr es s ed t he W hi t e f ami l y and apo l ogi zed f

orw hathad happene d t o D avi d W hi t e. H ow ever , B ookerm ai nt ai ned t hathe had act ed i n sel f
- def ens e and had not i nt ended t o hur tW hi t e. Fur ther , K ei th W hi t e and C har l ot t e W hi t e t es t i f i ed thatthey had
n ev er h ad p ro b lem s, b e itv iolen ce o r oth erw ise, from their ne igh b o r, C h ad B o o k er. M o re o v e r, n u m e ro u s w itn e ss e s te stifie d tha t B o o k e r h a d n o t b e e n a n g ry o r d isre sp e c tfu l to W h ite p rio r to th e a lterc a tio n , an d th a t B o o k e r h a d n o t ex p re ss e d a n y d e sire to re talia te
a g a in s t W h ite fo r t h e e v e n ts o f S a tu rd a y , M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 7
. ¶56. T he m aj or i ty opi ned that the di s put e betw een W hi t e and B ooker on M ar ch 10, 2007, had notended w hen B ookerdr ove bac k t o hi s aut o s hop af t erbei ng accost ed by W hi t e;
r ather , i tc arr i ed on thr ough t he eve ni ng of M ar ch 10, 2007. M aj
. O p. at¶ 5. T o s uppor tt hat
o p in io n , th e m a

jo rity p o in ts to a lleg a tio n s o f K e ith W h ite, D a v id W h ite’s so n , to s h o w th a t, af t erD avi d W hi t e t ol d B ookert o s l ow dow n, B ookerdr ove hi s r ed C hevr ol etpi ckup truck on C ounty R oad 813 i n f r ontof D avi d W hi t e’s h om e appr oxi m at el y f ourt i m es on t he eveni ng of

M ar ch 10, 2007, and thateac h t i m e B ookerpa s s ed W hi t e’ s home, he w oul d s t op atthe end of

W hi t e’ s dr i vew ay, putthe truck i n neutr al a nd r ev the engi ne. M aj
. O p. at¶ 5. K ei th W hi t e f

urthert es t i f

i ed thathe hea r d B ookeryel l “f

— you” on the f

our th t i m e that B oo ker drove p astthe W hit e dri vew ay. M aj
. O p. at¶ 5. B oo ker den i ed those al l egati on s. ¶57. T he m aj or i ty al s o poi nt s t o the t es t i m ony of Shade W hi t e, D avi d W hi t e’ s gr ands on, t o i l l us tr at e t hatt he di s put e betw een D avi d W hi t e and Bookerhad notended w hen B ooker
w entback t o hi s s hop a f t erbe i ng c onf

r ont ed by D avi d W hi t e on M ar ch 10, 2007. M aj
. O p. at¶ 5. Shade W hi t e t es t i f i ed that , ne ar11: 00 p. m . on M ar ch 10, 2007, he hea r d the engi ne
o f a tru c k th a th e b e l i e v e d t o b e Bo o k e r ’ s r e v v i n g u p o u t s i d e h i s b e d r o o m w i n d o w.

### 29

H o w e v e r, de fe n se co u n se l elicite d tes tim o n y fro m S h a d e W h ite to d e m o n stra te th a t h e , in f act , di d no tknow w hetherthe vehi cl e he ha d hear d bel onged t o B ooker , and he di d not k n o w w h e th e r B o o k e r w a s d ri v in g th e v e h ic le th a t h e h a d h e a rd th a t n ig h t. ¶ 5 8
. E v e n if

S h a d e W h ite h a d m a in tain e d th a t th e tru c k th a t h e h a d h e a rd o u tsid e h is b e d ro o m w in d o w o n M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 , w a s C h a d B o o k e r’s a n d th a t B o o k e r w a s a c tu a lly dr i vi ng the vehi cl e, B ookerha d a n a l i bi a nd a n a l i bi w i tnes s w hos e t es t i m ony contr adi ct ed thatof Shade W hi t e. B ooker ’ s al i bi w as t hathe w as nei therathom e nori n the C i ty of R i pl ey atthe t i m e of

the al l eged a nnoyance out s i de of S hade W hi t e’ s bedr oom w i ndow
. A m y E s t es t es t i f i ed thaton M ar ch 10, 2007, s he metB ookerand Shanna V uncannon at8: 00 p. m . i n the W al-M art p ark ing lot in R ipley , M issi ssipp i. E stes sa id tha t th ey leftR ipley in V u n ca n n o n ’s vehi cl e and w entt o the R uby T ues day’ s r es t aur anti n C or i nth, M i ss i s s i ppi
. E s t es f ur ther tes tified th a t sh e , V u n c a n n o n , an d B o o k e r h a d lef t th e C o rin th re sta u ra n t at a p p ro x im a tely 1 1 :3 0 p .m ., a n d th a t it w a s a ft e r 1 2 :0 0 a .m . w h e n th e y re tu rn e d to R ip le y . ¶5 9
. B o o k e r’s re a so n a b le e y ew itn ess a cc o u n t w as “ n o t su b sta n tially c o n tra d icte d in
m at eri al part i cular s, ” and the “p ert i nen tci rcum st ances co rr ob orat e” his version of even t s,
w hi ch w oul d “col l ect i vel y s us t ai n a s uf f i ci entcas e of

sel f- defense
. ” Johnson , 987 So. 2d
a t 4 2 6 . T h e re fo re , B o o k e r’s v e rsio n o f e v e n ts w a s re q u ire d to b e a c c e p ted a s tru e , an d it p rov ided an ab so lute lega l defe n se, na m ely s elf de fen se, t o eith er m u rde r or m an slau g h ter. I d. M or e ov e r , h a vi ng t a ke n “ the tr a ns c r i pto f the e vi de nc e b y the f

ou rc orne r s , . . . t he W eat hers by rul e i s cl ear l y appl i cabl e, as the nec es s ary el ement s f orei thera murde ror
m a n s la u g h te r c o n v ic tio n w e re la c k in g . I d. A ccor di ngl y, B ookerw as ent i t l ed t o a di r ect ed

### 30

ver di ctof

acqui t t al
. T he j udgm entof the C our tof A ppeal s and the tr i al court ’ s convi ct i on
an d sen tenc e sh o u ld b e re v erse d , an d the c ase sh o u ld b e re n d ere d in fav o r of B o o k er. DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , AND CHAN DL ER , J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.