### M’N aghten ’s Ca se , 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843)
. 1 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 3 - KA- 0 1 8 0 0 - S CT S HEI LA E ALE Y
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 28/ 2013 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . W IL L IA M E . C H A P M A N , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES 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 : BA RB AR A W AKE L AND B YR D D I STR I CT A TTO RN EY : M I CH A EL G U EST 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 - 02/ 12/ 2015 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. , K I T C H E N S A N D C O L E M A N , JJ. CO LEM AN, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . Shei l a Eal ey gave bi r t h t o a b a by b oy i n a h ot e l r oo m, w r apped the baby i n a comfort er , puthi m i n a s ui t cas e, and l ef tthe s ui t cas e behi nd her ch urch. A j ury f ound her g u il ty of ca p it al m u rde r w ith th e u n d erlying fel o n y of ch il d ab u se, and th e circu itc o u rt
se n ten c e d h e r to life w ith o u t p a ro le
. O n a p p e a l, E a ley a ss e rts th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in
re fu sin g a n a c c id e n t-o r-m isfo rtu n e ju ry in stru c tio n an d tha t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su ffic ien t to
s uppor tthe gui l ty ver di ct . She a l s o ur ges the C our tt o a bandon and r epl ace the M ’ N aghten 1 Ru l e o n i n s a n i ty . Ea l e y ’ s i s s u e s l a c k me r i t . W e a f f i r m.

### 2 Fac t ualBack gr ound ¶2. Shei l a E al ey cl ai m s a m an abduct ed and r aped her i n Sept ember 2009. E al ey di d not tell a n y o n e . S e v e ra l m o n th s la ter , E a ley d isc o v e re d th a t sh e w a s p re g n a n t. S h e d id n o t tell anyone thats he w as pr egnant ; herf ami l y and cow or ker s neverr eal i zed i t . A tthatt i m e, E al ey w as a f

or ty- one- year - ol d si ngl e m otherof f i ve chi l dr en. E al ey’ s ol des tdaught erw as a n u rse , h e r o ld e st so n w a s in h ig h sc h o o l, a n d h e r th re e y o u n g e st c h ild re n w e re in m id d le
s chool
. A ccor di ng t o he rc hi l dr en, Eal ey pr ovi ded f orthem and w as a good m other
. E al ey
w or ked ata chur ch dayca r e, and hercow or ker s sai d s he w as a good t eac her
. E al ey att ended Sm i th C hapel B apt i s tC hur ch w i th herf ami l y, and s he w as i nvol ved i n m any chur ch
a c tiv itie s . ¶ 3 . E a l e y ’ s g r e a t - u n c l e , Vi c t o rW a s h i n g t o n , wa s th e g r o u n d s k e e p e ra tS mi th Ch a p e l
. On Jul y 1 , 20 1 0 , W ashi ng t on w as m ow i ng grass atthe ch urch w hen he n oti ced a su i t case part i al l y hi dden i n a w ooded ar ea be hi nd the chur ch. A l though he thoughti tw as s tr ange, he di d notthen i ns pectt he sui t cas e. T he sui t cas e w as st i l l t her e w hen W as hi ngt on r eturned the fo llo w in g d a y , an d W a sh in g to n c a lled a c h u rc h tru ste e to in sp e c t i t. T h e tru ste e w a s C a lv in E al ey, w ho ha ppened t o be Eal ey’ s f ather
. C ar ol yn Robi ns on, Eal ey’ s a unt , a rr i ved att he chur ch w i th herbr otherC al vi n. A s the tr i o appr oache d the s ui t cas e, they s aw gr een f l i es s w arm i ng ar ound i t , and they s us pect ed thats om ethi ng m i ghtbe dea d. T hey ca l l ed the
s her i f f’ s depart m entw i thoutevert ouchi ng the s ui t cas e. ¶4. M adi s on C ount y Sher i f f D eputy J i m m y K ni ghtr es ponded and r etr i eved the s ui t cas e. I ns i de t he sui t cas e, D eputy K ni ghtfound a c om f or t ers tuf f ed i nt o a bl ack tr as h bag. A s he insp ec ted th e c o n ten ts, h e sa w b loo d an d a b ab y ’s ha n d
. D ep u ty K n igh t call ed S h eriff’s

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U. S. 436 ( 1966). 2 

### 3 I nves t i gat orR obi n W el ch, w ho came t o the church w i th the pol i ce c hi ef
. W el ch phot ogr aphed the s cene and ca l l ed the cor oner . L at erthatday, W el ch w as not i f i ed t hatE al ey
w as att he Sher i f

f’ s D epart m ent , and she w ant ed t o s peak t o an i nves t i gat or . W el ch advi s ed E aley o f he r Mir anda ri g h ts, w h ich s h e sa id sh e u n d erstoo d , an d s h e s ig n ed a w aive r-of- 2 ri g h ts fo rm . E a le y th e n g a v e a v e rb a l s ta te m e n t. ¶5. E al ey t ol d W el ch thats he had been r aped i n Sept ember2009. I n J anuary 2010, s he di s cover ed s he w as pr egnant , and s he thoughtthe pr egnanc y r es ul t ed f r om the r ape. E al ey d i d n o tt e l l a n y o n e a b o u tth e r a p e o rth e p r e g n a n c y , a n d s h e d i d n o ts e e k p r e n a t a l c a r e . On S a tu rd a y , J u n e 2 6 , 2 0 1 0 , E a le y w o k e u p w ith la b o r p a in s . S h e le ft h o m e a ro u n d 1 :0 0 p .m ., t aki ng a s ui t cas e and a bed comf or t er . T he s ui t cas e w as em pty exceptfora t r as h bag thats he
us ed f orl aundry w hen s he tr avel ed. E al ey w entt o the Super- 8 M ot el i n G l ucks t adtand chec ked i n. She s pr ead the com for t eron the f l oorand gave bi r th t o a chi l d on the mot el
roo m fl o o r. ¶6. E al ey s ai d t hats he f el l as l eep a f

t ergi vi ng bi r th. W hen s he w oke up, s he w r apped the baby i n the comf

or t er , putthe comf

or t eri n the s ui t cas e, and putthe s ui t cas e i n the trunk of hercar . E al ey then dr ove t o Sm i th C hapel and l ef tthe sui t cas e behi nd the chur ch. E al ey
w enthom e, t ook a bath, and w as hed hercl othes
. She di d nott el l anyone w hathappene d. E a ley a tten d e d c h u rc h a t S m ith C h a p e l th e fo llo w in g m o rn in g , b u t sh e sa id sh e c o u ld n o t sit thr ough the ent i r e s ervi ce. E al ey’s verbal s t at ementw as notr ecor ded, buts he pr ovi ded a

### 4

w r i t t en s t at ementas w el l
. I n herw r i t t en st at ement , E al ey w r ot e thats he i nt ended t o go back to th e c h u rc h a n d tak e th e c h ild to a h o sp ital. ¶7. W el ch co n d u cted three i nterview s w i th E al ey and ob t ai ned tw o w ri t t en st at em ents . H ers t ory w as cons i st ent each t i m e w i th tw o exce pt i ons : ( 1) w hetherE al ey had he ar d t he b ab y cry , an d (2 ) w h ethe r an y o n e o ther tha n the a tt ac k er c o u ld h av e b ee n the b ab y ’s fathe r. D ur i ng the f

i r s ti nt ervi ew on J ul y 2, Eal ey s ai d s he hear d the baby cry onl y onc e i n the mot el
r oom bef

or e s he w r apped the chi l d i n the comf ort er and p ut hi m i n the s ui t cas e. I n her
w ri tte n s ta te m e n t g iv e n th e s a m e d a y , s h e w ro te , “ I a m n o t s u re if th e b a b y w a s c ry in g , I d id h ea r it init iall y b ut af t er t hatI ’ m nots ur e. ” D ur i ng a s econd i nt ervi ew the f ol l ow i ng day, E al ey sai d the bab y cri ed t w i ce – once atbi rth and once w hen s he w as putt i ng the suit case i n the trunk. I nves t i gat orT odd W i l s on w as pr es entf orthe s econd int ervi ew , and he conf i r m ed thatE al ey s ai d t he bab y cri ed tw i ce. E al ey l at ert ol d a ps ychol ogi s tthat“s he thoughts he hea r d a baby c r y, buts he w as n’ ts ur e. ” ¶8. D ur i ng the i nt ervi ew s on J ul y 2 and 3, the i m pl i cat i on w as thatthe pr egnanc y r es ul t ed f r om the r ape, and Eal ey di d notsugges tt hatanyone ot hert han t he at t acke rcoul d have be en the f atherof the chi l d. I n herw r i t t en st at ementfr om Jul y 2, she w r ot e, “I had been c arr yi ng the i nci dentar ound w i th m e and t o thi nk I had t o have a baby w i th s om eone w ho had r aped
m e. I cou l dn ’tw r ap my m i nd ar ound i t . ” Sever al days l at er , on J ul y 7, E al ey cont act ed W el ch and t ol d hi m thatJ err y B ol den, he rl ongt i m e boyf r i end and the f

atherof f ourof her chi l dr en, coul d have be en the f ather
. She pr ovi ded a w ri t t en s t at ementconf i r m i ng t hat “B ol den coul d pos s i bl y be the f atherof the chi l d. ” D N A t es t i ng l at erconf i r m ed thatB ol den
w as th e fa ther.

### Eal ey wa s indic te d in Oc tobe r 2010, and tri alwas se t ini ti al ly for July 2011. Af

te r 3 

### mult ip le c o ntinu ances, ag reed to bybo th p arties, Ealey ’s trial too k p lace in Aug ust 2 01 3. Dr. Li t es ti fi ed: “At

thetimeof the a

utops y, . . . Ididn’ t have a llof the infor mati on 4 

### ava il abl e, and a

lot of tim es we don’ t want t o del ay thesigning out or fini shing a cas e for too long, so Ile avethat c aus e and manner of death unde terminedfor theposs ibi li ty of

fut ure . If we h ave mo re info rmation , newinfo rmation , thenwe canalw ay s ch ang e to o ther cau se or manner o f death .” 5 ¶9. A M adi s on C ount y gr and j ury i ndi ct ed E al ey f or capi t al m ur der w i th the under l yi ng fe lo n y o f ch ild ab u se . E a ley en ter e d a p lea o f n o t gu ilty , a n d sh e p re se n ted a n in s a n ity def ens e attr i al
. D r . Feng L i , w ho had per f orm ed the baby’ s aut ops y, w as acc ept ed as an 3 experti n f

or ens i c pathol ogy. D r . L i t es t i f i ed t hathe di d notdet erm i ne ca us e of death w hen he di d the aut ops y. H ow ever , a f t err evi ew i ng de t ai l s f

r om the i nves t i gat i on, D r . L i opi ned 4 thatthe ca us e of

death w as “more l i kel y than notas phyxi a” a nd thatthe m annerof de ath w as h o m ic id e . ¶10. E al ey’ s s on, J er al d E al ey, w as cal l ed as a w i tnes s fort he def ens e. J er al d t es t i f

i ed that E a ley w a s th e so le p ro v id e r fo r h e r c h ild re n a n d th a t sh e re c e iv e d little s u p p o rt fro m h is father , B ol den. J er al d s ai d hi s m otherw as very pr ot ect i ve of herchi l dr en and thatthey
c o n fid e d in h e r. Je ra ld te stifie d th a t h e w e n t to c h u rc h w ith E a ley th e d a y a fte r th e in c id e n t. H e s ai d s he l ooked f

i ne, buts he di d notf

eel w el l a nd di d notgo t o l unch w i th the f ami l y af t er chur ch thatday. ¶ 1 1 . T h e d e fe n se a lso c a lled D r. G e ra ld O ’B rie n , a n d h e w a s a c c e p te d a s a n e x p e rt in f or ens i c ps ychol ogy. D r . O ’ B r i en had eval uat ed Eal ey and pe r f or m ed a f

ul l ps ychol ogi cal
as s es s m ent . H e t es t i f

i ed thatE al ey’ s I Q w as i n the l ow - aver age r ange a nd thats he di d not exhi bi ts i gns of m al i nger i ng. H e t es t i f i ed thatE al ey w as s uf

f er i ng f r om m aj ordepr es s i on

### 6

and anxi ety and thats he had be en f oratl eas tone yea r pri or t o t he i nci dent
. D r . O ’ B r i en o p i n e d th a tth e r e wa s “ c l e a re v i d e n c e o f e x tr e me me n t a l o re mo t i o n a l d i s tu rb a n c e a tth e t i me of the al l eged of

f ens e” a nd, i n hi s opi ni on, “s tr ongl y s ugges t i ve evi dence ” i ndi cat ed that E al ey “w as unabl e to know the natur e and qua l i ty of heract s [ and] the di f

f er ence betw een rig h t an d w ro n g ” a t th e tim e o f th e in c id e n t. H o w e v e r, h e c o u ld n o t sa y “ to a re a so n a b le degr ee of sci ent i f i c, psychol ogi cal , orm ent al cert ai nty” thatE al ey di d notknow r i ghtf r om
w ro n g a t th e tim e o f th e in c id e n t. A n d , to th e c o n tra ry , h e a d m itt e d th a t E a ley ’s s tate m e n ts th a t sh e w o u ld n e v e r h u rt a n y o n e , es p e c ially a c h ild , an d th e fa c t th a t sh e tu rn e d h e rse lf in
an d want e d t o mak e a c on f e s s i on r e f

l e c t e d a n u nd e r s t a nd i ng tha ts he ha d d on e s omethi ng
w r ong. D r . O ’ B r i en t es t i f i ed that , i n hi s opi ni on, no one coul d s ay w i th any degr ee of
c e rta in ty w h e th e r E a ley w a s s a n e a t th e tim e o f th e in c id e n t. ¶ 1 2 . T h e S tate p re se n ted se v e ra l l a y w itn e ss e s a n d ex p e rt w itn e ss e s to reb u t E a ley ’s c laim that sh e w as insa n e at th e ti m e sh e c o m m itted th e o ffen se. T h ree o f E aley ’s co w o rke rs w ere c a lled to tes tify . E a ley h a d w o rk e d a t th e d a y c a re fo r a y e a r an d a h a lf, a n d sh e w o rk e d w ith f our - year - ol d chi l dr en. T he as s i s t antdi r ect orof the dayca r e t es t i f i ed t hatE al ey w as a good t eac her , thats he gotal ong w el l w i t h t he ot hert eac her s , and thatthe par ent s and chi l dr en l i ked her
. L i kew i se, anot hercow or kert es t i f i ed thatE al ey “di d a gr eatj ob” and thatt he par ent s and chi l dr en l oved her
. T hey ea ch t es t i f i ed thatE al ey di d notexhi bi tany odd or i rr at i onal behavi ori n the w eek l eadi ng up the i nci dent , and they di d nothave any i ndi cat i on thatE al ey w as m ent al l y i l l oruns t abl e. E ach cow or kert es t i f i ed that , i n thei ropi ni on, E al ey knew the di f

f er ence betw een r i ghtand w r ong atthatt i m e.

### 7

¶13. T he St at e cal l ed D r . Cri s s Lot ta s a n e xperti n f or ens i c ps ycho l og y. D r. L ott had eval uat ed Eal ey, per f

or m ed per s onal i ty and ps ychol ogi cal t es t i ng, r evi ew ed i nf or m at i on ab o u t t h e case, and i nterview ed E al ey’s f am i l y an d co w orkers
. T he p urpose o f D r. L ott ’s eval uat i on w as to assess E al ey’ s m ent al s t at e atthe t i m e of the of f ens e and t o det erm i ne
w hethers he w as capabl e of ass i s t i ng i n the pr epar at i on of herdef ens e. D r . L ot ti nt ervi ew ed E a ley ’s f iv e c h ild re n , h e r b ro th e r, an d th e d a y c a re d ire c to r. H e tes tified th a t E a ley ’s f a m ily
m ember s di d notnot i ce a ny odd behavi orbe f or e the i nci dent
. D r . Lot ts ai d E al ey r eport ed t hat s he w as exper i enci ng depr es s i on, w hi ch w as cons i s t entw i th hi s cl i ni cal obs ervat i on s. H ow e ve r , Dr . Lotts a w Ea l e y on l y a f t e rthe i nc i de nt , when s he was i nc a r c e r a t e d, a nd he expl ai ned that“i tw oul d notbe uncomm on” f ora per s on i n Eal ey’ s s i tuat i on t o s uf f erf r om s i tuat i onal depr es s i on and anxi ety. D r . L ot tadmi ni s t ered an int el l ectual capa ci ty and f unct i oni ng t es t , and E al ey sc or ed i n t he aver age t o l ow - aver age r ange. D r . L ot tdi d nott hi nk E a le y w a s m a lin g e ri n g re g a rd in g h e r i n te llig e n c e o r e x a g g e ra tin g h e r d e p re s s io n . ¶14. D r . Lot topi ned thatEal ey w as s uf f er i ng f r om maj ordepr es s i on w hen he s aw her , but that h er d ep ression co u ld h av e b ee n o n g o ing fo r so m e ti m e p ri o r to the in cide n t. H o w ev er, he di d notbe l i eve that , pr i ort o the i nci dent , herdepr es s i on w as s o s ever e thats he coul d not f unct i on. D r . L ot tal s o opi ned t hatdepr es s i on w as ent i r el y di f f er entf r om i ns ani ty and that E al ey w as noti ns ane. D r . Lot t ’ s opi ni on, w hi ch he t es t i f i ed w as t o a “r eas onabl e degr ee of ps ychol ogi cal cer t ai nty, ” w as t hatE al ey w oul d have be en abl e t o under s t and w hats he w as doi ng and thats he w oul d have be en abl e t o under s t and the di f f er ence i n r i ghtand w r ong at the t i m e s he gave bi r th. H e t es t i f i ed that , i n hi s opi ni on, E al ey knew thatw hats he di d w as
w r ong. D r . L ot texpl ai ned thatEal ey had exhi bi t ed r emors e af t erthe i nci dentand s ai d t hat

### M’N aghten ’s Ca se , 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843) . The M’Naght en te st for det er mining 5 

### ins ani ty i s whe the r the a cc use d knew right from wrong at thetim e the a ct was commi tt ed. See Wo od

ha m v. State , 7 79 S o. 2d15 8, 1 63 (¶ 27 ) (Miss. 2 00 1); Ru ssell v. Sta te , 729 So. 2d 781, 784 ( Mis s. 1997). 8 s he f el ts i gni f i cantgu i l t , w hich w as evi dence thats he under s t ood s he had done s om ethi ng
w r ong. H ow ever , i n hi s r eport , he conc l uded that , al though E al ey di d no tm eetthe M ’ N ag hte n c riter ia fo r in sa n ity , h e tho u g h t “h e r d e p re ss io n a d v e rse ly a ffe c ted h e r a b ili ty 5 t o r es pond r at i onal l y t o he rs i tuat i on a nd t o conf orm herconductt o the r equi r ement s of the l aw . ” ¶15 . D r. R eb M cM i chael, w ho w as accept ed as a n ex p ert i n fore n sic p sy ch i at ry, al so eval uat ed Eal ey and t es t i f i ed forthe St at e. D r . M cM i chae l opi ned thatE al ey had exper i ence d de pr es s i on a nd a nxi ety of f a nd on f orm any yea r s . H ow ever , i n hi s opi ni on, at the t i m e of

t he of f ens e, E al ey knew t he natur e and qual i ty of heract i ons and knew r i ghtf r om
w r ong. I n t al ki ng t o D r . M cM i chae l , E al ey di d notm ent i on hear i ng the baby c ry atbi r th; s he
s ai d w hen s he w oke up “ther e w as s i l ence . ” Eal ey t ol d D r . M cM i chae l thats he di d notm ean t o har m t he baby, butshe w as bei ng sel f i s h and thi nki ng abouther s el f and s he j us tw ant ed i tt o b e o v e r . Dr . M c M i c h a e l t e s t i f i e d th a t , i n h i s o p i n i o n , Ea l e y wa s n o ts u f f e r i n g f r o m a
m aj orm ent al di s or derw hen the i nci dentoc curr ed. L i ke D r . Lot t , D r . M cM i chae l opi ned that situ a tio n a l d e p re ss io n a n d an x iety fo r a p e rso n in ja il w a s n o t un u su a l an d , in fac t, i t w o u ld h a v e b e e n u n u s u a l if

E a le y w a s n o t d e p re s s e d o r a n x io u s . ¶16. A tthe conc l us i on of the tr i al , the j ury f

ound Eal ey gui l ty of

c api t al murde rw i t h t he under l yi ng f

el ony of c hi l d abus e. T he courts ent ence d E al ey t o l i f e i m pr i s onm entw i thout

### 9

p a ro le. E a ley filed a M o tio n f o r A c q u itt a l N o tw ith sta n d in g th e V e rd ict o r fo r N e w T ria l,
w hi ch w as deni ed. E al ey appe al ed. A n a ly sis ¶17. E al ey w as convi ct ed of capi t al murde rw i th the under l yi ng f el ony of c hi l d abus e under M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i ons 97- 5- 39( a) ( 2) and 97- 3- 19( 2) ( f ). S he r ai s es thr ee i s s ues on ap p ea l: (1) w h eth e r th e tr ial co u rterred in refu sing h er a cc iden t- o r-m isf o rtu n e jury i ns truct i on; ( 2) w hetherthe evi dence of c api t al murde rw as s uf

f i ci enta nd w hetherthe ver di ct
w as cont r ary t o the w ei ghtof the evi dence ; and ( 3) w hetherthe M ’ N ag hte n R u le o n in sa n ity
s houl d be aba ndoned and r epl ace d. I . W hether the tri al cou rt err ed i n ref usi ng E al ey’ s acci dent - orm i s f or t une j ur y i ns t r uc t i on. ¶18 . T he st and ard of revi ew for a tri al cou rt ’s grant or den i al of a j ury i nst ruct i on i s abuse
o f d is c re tio n . N

ew ell v. S ta te , 49 S o. 3d 66, 73 ( ¶ 20) ( M i s s . 2010)
. E al ey s ubm i t t ed an
acc i dent -or - m i s f

or tune j ury i ns truct i on underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 17( a)
. T hat
s ect i on pr ovi des : “The ki l l i ng of any hum an bei ng by the ac t , pr ocur ement , orom i s s i on of anothers hall be excus abl e: ( a) W hen comm i t t ed by ac ci dentand mi s f or tune i n doi ng any l aw f ul actby l aw f

ul m eans , w i th usual and ordi nary caut i on, and w i thoutany unl aw f ul i nt ent [
. ] ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 17 ( R ev. 2014)
. I f the j ury f

i nds thata ki l l i ng occurr ed b y ac cide n t or m isf

o rtu n e w h il e d o ing “a law ful act by l aw ful m ea n s w ith u su al an d o rdin ary c a u tio n a n d w ith o u t a n y u n law fu l in ten t,” th e n it is c o n sid e re d “ e x c u sa b le h o m icid e ” a n d is
n o t p u n is h a b le
. B u rg e v. S ta te , 472 So. 2d 392, 395 ( M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9 7 -3 -1 7 (a ) ( 1 9 7 2 ))
.

### 10

¶19. E al ey’ s pr opos ed ac ci dent
- or - m i s f or tune j ury i ns truct i on r ead: T he C our ti ns truct s the j ury thati f you f i nd thatthe baby Eal ey di ed as the r es ul tof acci dentor mi s f

or tune w hi l e Shei l a Eal ey w as engage d i n a l aw f ul act b y law fu l m e a n s, w ith u su a l an d o rd in a ry ca u tio n , a n d w ith o u t un law fu l in ten t, then you s hal l f

i nd the D ef

endant , S hei l a Eal ey, notgui l ty of C api t al M ur der as char ged i n the i ndi ctm ent , a nd r eturn yourver di ctas f ol l ow s : “W e, the J ury, fin d th e D e fe n d a n t, S h e ila E a ley , n o t gu ilty o f C a p ital M u rd e r, as c h a rg e d in th e in d ic tm e n t, b y re a s o n o f a c c id e n t o r m is fo rt u n e .” T h e tri al j u d g e d en ied th e ins tru cti o n , h o lding that there w as n o ev iden ti ary b asis to su p p o rt
an ac ci dent
- or - m i s f

or tune instruct i on. E al ey cl ai m s thatthe evi dence di d s uppor tt he i ns truct i on, be caus e the evi dence pr es ent ed w as i nconcl us i ve r egar di ng w hen the baby di ed and the mannerof

death. Par tof

E al ey’ s def

ens e attr i al w as that , i f the baby’ s death w as c a u se d b y a c c id e n t o r m isfo rtu n e , th e n th e h o m icid e w a s e x c u sa b le. T h u s, E a ley c laim s th a t, b y re fu sing th e ac cide n t- o r-m isf o rtu n e jury i n stru cti o n , th e tr ial co u rtdid n o t all o w he r to p rese n t her the o ry o f th e c ase to th e ju ry . W h il e a d efe n d an t i s en ti tl ed to h av e jury i nst ruct i on s gi ven that presenthis theo ry of the case, that ent i t l em ent i s not w i tho ut l i m i t s –

“ th e c o u rt m a y re fu se a n in stru c tio n [th a t] in c o rre c tly s tate s th e law , is c o v e re d fa irly el s ew her e i n the i ns truct i ons , ori s w i thoutf oundat i on i n the evi dence
. ” N e w e ll , 49 So. 3d at74 ( ¶ 20) ( quot i ng He a rn v. S ta te , 3 S o . 3 d 7 2 2 , 7 3 8 (¶ 4 5 ) ( M is s . 2 0 0 8 ))
. ¶ 2 0 . W e h a v e h e ld th a t “ [j] u ry in stru c tio n s sh o u ld b e g iv e n o n ly w h e n fa c ts d e v e lo p e d in the ca s e bei ng tr i ed s uppor tt hem. ” S im m o n s v . S ta te , 80 5 S o. 2d 45 2, 47 3 (¶ 30 ) ( M i ss. 2001)
. T he tr i al courtw i l l notbe p ut i n err orf ordenyi ng a j ury i ns truct i on w hen the
e v id e n c e w a s in s u ff

ic ie n t to s u p p o rt th e in s tru c tio n . I d. See al s o B a tiste v . S ta te , 121 So. 3 d 8 0 8 , 8 4 5 -4 6 (¶ 7 5 ) (M iss . 2 0 1 3 ); R o b in so n v. S ta te , 7 5 8 S o . 2 d 4 8 0 , 4 8 9 (¶ 3 7 ) (M iss . C t. A pp. 2000)
. I n R o b in so n v. S ta te , the def endantr eques t ed an acci den t -or - m i s f or tune

### 11

i ns truct i on f

orthe theory thathi s gun acci dent al l y w entoff w hen he w as tryi ng t o br eak up
a fi g h t. R obinson , 758 So. 2d at489 ( ¶ 34)
. N o on e tes t i fi ed thatR obi ns on dr ew the gun i n an ef f or tt o st op t he f

i ght ; R obi ns on hi m s el f

even “r epea t edl y deni ed thatthe w eapon w as f i r ed, ei theracc i dent al l y orotherw i s e. ” I d. at489 ( ¶ 37)
. T he C our tof A ppeal s hel d thatt he tr i al j udge di d noterri n denyi ng the i ns truct i on beca us e i tw as nots uppor t ed by the
e v id e n c e . I

d. ¶2 1 . E a ley a rg u e s th a t, ev en if the ch il d w as ali v e w h en sh e p u t h im in the su it ca se, his death coul d have be en an a cci dent
. She a s s ert s thats he coul d have be en di s or i ent ed w hen
s he w oke up due t o bl ood l os s , r es ul t i ng i n her ex erci s e of poorj udgm ent . W hi l e s he w as in cu stod y , E aley w as h o sp it ali ze d an d trea ted fo r po stpa rtu m he m o rrha g ing an d sev ere anemi a. T he St at e’ s expert s bot h t es t i f i ed thatbl ood l os s af

t ergi vi ng b i rth coul d have af f ect ed Eal ey adve r s el y and ca us ed her t o be del i r i ous . E al ey w as tr eat ed f orpos tpar tum hemorrhagi ng af

t ers he w as i n cus t ody, w hi ch w as atl eas tone w eek a f t ert he baby w as bor n. Im m e d iate ly a fte r th e c h ild w a s b o rn , h o w e v e r, E a le y w a s a b le to w a lk to h e r c a r, d riv e to the chur ch, carr y t he s ui t cas e t o t he w oods , dri ve hom e, bat he, w as h hercl othes , and att end chur ch the f

ol l ow i ng morni ng. She then w entt o w or k the f ol l ow i ng w eek. N o one not i ced any odd beha vi orduri ng t hatt i m e. T her e i s no evi dence t o s uppor tthatE al ey w as del us i onal or del i ri ou s. ¶22. E al ey al s o cl ai m s that the chi l d coul d have di ed w hen s he w as as l eep, bef or e s he put hi m i n the s ui t cas e, thus , the chi l d’ s death coul d have be en an a cci dentand the r es ul tof E a l e y ’ s c h o i c e t o h a v e a n u n a t t e n d e d b i r th
. T o s u p p o r tt h a tt h e o ry , Ea l e y p o i n t s t o h e ro wn conf us i on aboutw hethers he hea r d the chi l d c ry onc e ortw i ce a nd t o herow n s t at ementt hat

### 12

s he di d notdet ectm ovementw hen s he w r apped the baby i n the comf or t er . T he tr i al j udge
s ai d, “hers ayi ng s he does n’ tr eca l l i s nota s uf f i ci entf actual b asi s forthe j ury t o r etur n a ver di ctof

a cci dentormi s t ake” a nd “ herl at ers t at ementthats he di dn’ tr eca l l i s not t ant amount t o hers aying the b aby di dn’ tcry. ” Eal ey’ s ow n s t at ement s contr adi ct ed her th e o ry th a t th e c h ild d ied w h ile s h e w a s a sle e p b e c a u se , at o n e p o in t, E a ley sa id th e c h ild
c ri e d w h e n s h e p u t th e s u itc a s e in th e tru n k
. ¶23. Fi nal l y, E al ey ar gues t hatherfa i l ur e t o see k m edi cal car e coul d have bee n cons i der ed abus i ve beha vi orand, ther ef or e, s he w as ent i t l ed t o the ac ci dent
- or - m i s f or tune i ns truct i on beca us e “omi s s i ons ” thata r e cons i der ed abus i ve ar e notne ces s ar i l y purpos ef ul
. T her e i s no e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th e c o n ten tio n th a t E a ley ’s d e c isio n n o t to s e e k p re n a tal c a re a n d n o t to
s eek m edi cal car e dur i ng t he bi r th w as anythi ng otherthan i nt ent i onal and purpos ef ul
. She
rea d il y ad m itted th at sh e told n o o n e a b o u t th e p reg n an cy an d d id n o t see k m ed ical ca re. I n B u ffin g to n v. S ta te , the C o u rt h e ld tha t “fa ilu re to fe e d , n o u rish , o r p ro v id e m e d ica l ca re to a chi l d can be i nt ent i onal , and s uch a r ef us al m ay ca use ser i ou s bo di l y harm ” and a ct s of
o m is s io n a re in c lu d e d a s a b u s iv e b e h a v io r. B u ffin g to n v. S ta te , 824 So. 2d 576, 582 ( ¶ 24) (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶24. T he St at e ar gues that the tr i al court corr ect l y deni ed E al ey’ s acc i dent
- or - m i s f or tune i ns truct i on beca us e the evi dence does nots uppor tthatE al ey ac t ed w i th “w i th us ual and
o rdin ary ca u ti o n ” a s req u ir ed for a h o m icid e to b e e x cu sab le un d er S ec ti o n 9 7 -3-1 7 (a). Spec i f i c a l l y, the St a t e w r i t e s tha tEal e y d i d n ota c t“ w i th u s ua l a nd or di na ry c a ut i on ” by gi vi ng bi r th i n a hot el r oom r atherthan i n a hospi t al , by w r appi ng the chi l d i n a comf or t er and putt i ng t he com f

or t eri n a garbage bag, by tr ans por t i ng t he chi l d i n a s ui t cas e i n the trunk

### 13

o f he r ca r, an d b y a b an d o n ing the c h il d a t a c h u rch
. W e ag ree . T h e ev iden ce d id n o t sup p o rt the ac ci dent
- or - m i s f

or tune i ns truct i on, beca us e the evi dence pr es ent ed di d nots how t hat E al ey ac t ed w i th “w i th us ual and or di nary c aut i on, ” and E al ey’ s ow n s t at ement s contr adi ct ed hertheory thatthe chi l d di ed bef or e s he puthi m i n the s ui t cas e. T he tr i al j udge’ s deni al of the ac ci dent
- or - m i s f

or tune i ns truct i on di d notamount t o an abus e of di s cr et i on. I I . W he t he r t he e vi de nc e o f c api t alm ur de r was s uf f i c i e nt and whe t he r t he verdi ct w as cont rary t o t he w ei ght of t he evi dence. ¶2 5 . E aley claim s tha t th e ev iden ce d id n o t sup p o rtthe v erd ictan d the v erd ictw as co n tr ary t o the w ei ghtof

the evi dence
. She asks t he C our tt o do one of the f ol l ow i ng: r enderan acqui t t al ; r ever s e and r emand f ora new t r i al ; re ver s e and r endera m ans l aught erconvi ct i on; o r rev erse an d rem an d for rese n tenc ing for the crim e o f m an slau g h ter. A . Suff i ci ency of

t he E vi dence ¶26. C l ai m i ng t hat the evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci ent t o s uppor t a capi t al m ur derconvi ct i on, E al ey as ks the C our tt o r ever s e and a cqui t . W hen the cha l l enge i s t o the l egal s uf f i ci ency of the evi dence , “the cr i t i cal i nqui r y i s w hetherthe evi dence s how s ‘ beyond a r eas onabl e doubt thatthe ac cus ed comm i t t ed the ac tchar ged, a nd thathe di d s o unders uch ci r cumst ance s t hat
every el ementof

the of f ens e exi s t ed. ’ ” B e a sle

y v. Sta te , 136 So. 3d 393 , 4 01-402 ( ¶ 29) ( M i s s . 2014) ( quot i ng Iv y v . S ta te , 949 So. 2d 748, 751 ( M i s s . 2007) )
. O n appea l , w e vi ew al l of the evi dence “i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the ver di ct . ” B eas ley , 136 So. 3d at402 ( ¶ 29) ( ci t i ng B u sh v. S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 )). T h e e v id e n c e is leg a lly
s uf f i c i e ntt o s up po r tthe j ury’ s v e r di c ti f “ r e a s on a bl e f

a i r - mi nd e d men i n the e xe r c i s e of im p a rt ia l ju d g m e n t m ig h t r e a c h d if fe re n t c o n c lu s io n s o n e v e ry e le m e n t o f t h e o ff e n s e .”

### 14

B eas ley , 136 So. 3d at402 ( ¶ 29) ( quot i ng E dw a rd s v. S ta te , 4 6 9 S o . 2d 68 , 70 (M i ss. 1 9 8 5 )). ¶27. E al ey w as i ndi ct ed f orcapi t al m ur derw i th the under l yi ng f el ony of chi l d abus e under S e c tio n s 9 7 -5 -3 9 (2 )(a ) a n d 9 7 -3 -1 9 (2 )(f). S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -1 9 p ro v id e s th a t a p e rso n is g u ilty of capi t al m ur deri f

s he ki l l s a human bei ng “w i thoutthe author i ty of l aw by any means or i n an y m ann er” w h il e “eng aged i n the com m i ssi on of the cri m e of f el on i ou s chi l d ab use and/ orbatt ery of

a c hi l d i n vi ol at i on of

s ubs ect i on ( 2) of

Sec t i on 97- 5- 39, ori n any att empt t o com m i tsuch f

el ony. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 19( 2) ( f ) ( R ev. 2014)
. A tthe t i m e of t he
c h ild ’s d e a th , S e c tio n 9 7 -5 -3 9 (2 ) p ro v id e d , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: ( 2) ( a) A ny per s on w ho s hal l int ent i onal l y ( i ) burn any chi l d, ( i i ) t or tur e any chi l d or , ( i i i ) excepti n s el f
- def ens e ori n or dert o pr eventbodi l y harm t o a thi r d party, w hi p, st r i ke orotherw i s e abus e orm ut i l at e any c hi l d i n s uch a m anneras t o caus e s er i ous bodi l y harm s hal l b e gui l ty of f el oni ous abus e of a c h il d an d , u p o n co n v ict ion , sh all b e se n ten c ed to im p ri so n m en t . . . for li fe or such l essert erm of i m pri sonm ent as the cou rtm ay d et erm i ne, bu tno tl ess th a n te n (1 0 ) y e a rs . . . . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 5- 39( 2) ( a) ( 2006)
. T he C our thas def i ned “s er i ous bodi l y harm ” under the chi l d abus e s t atut e t o m ean “ bodi l y i nj ury thatcr eat es a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of deat h, or p e rm a n e n t o r t e m p o ra ry d is fi g u re m e n t, o r i m p a ir m e n t o f a n y b o d ily o rg a n o r f u n c tio n .” B uf f ington , 824 So. 2d at57 9 ( ¶ 13) ( ci t i ng W o lfe v. S ta te , 74 3 S o. 2d 38 0, 38 5 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 )) . F u rt h e r, “ a c ts o f o m is s io n a re a d e q u a te to c o n s titu te fe lo n y c h ild a b u s e .” B uf f ington , 8 2 4 S o . 2 d at 57 7 , 5 8 2 (¶¶ 2 , 2 5 ). ¶2 8. E al ey admi t s t hats he “di s car ded” h e rb a by , b uts he a s s e r t s thatt he evi dence
es t abl i s hed onl y thatthe baby ha d di ed f r om negl ect , depr i vat i on, oraban do nm ent , w hi chE al ey cl ai m s thatthe evi dence es t abl i s hed onl y negl ect , depr i vati on, or 6 abandonm ent , underSect i on 97- 5- 39( 1) ( a) or( b)
. A tthe t i m e of the chi l d’ s death, t hat se c tio n p ro v id e d , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: ( 1) ( a) E xceptas ot herw i s e pr ovi ded i n thi s s ect i on, any par ent. . . w ho i nt ent i onal l y, know i ngl y orr eckl es s l y comm i t s any ac torom i t s the p e rfo rm a n c e o f a n y d u ty , w h ic h a c t o r o m iss io n c o n trib u tes to o r te n d s to contr i but e t o the negl ectorde l i nquency of a ny c hi l d orw hi ch ac torom i s s i on r es ul t s i n the abus e o f

any chi l d, as def

i ned i n Sect i on 43- 21- 105( m ) of the Y outh C our tL aw , . . . shal l be gui l ty of a mi s demeanor , and upon convi ct i on sh all be pu n ishe d by a fi n e n o t t o ex ce ed O n e T h o u san d D o ll ars ($ 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ), orby i m pr i s onm entnott o exce ed one ( 1) yeari n j ai l , orby both s uch f i ne and im p riso n m e n t. (b) If th e c h il d ’s de p ri v ati o n o f n ec essa ry fo o d , cloth ing , sh elt er, he alth ca re ors upervi s i on appr opr i at e t o the chi l d’ s age r es ul t s i n s ubs t ant i al harm t o the c h ild ’s p h y sic a l, m e n tal o r e m o tio n a l h e a lth , the p e rso n m a y b e se n ten c e d to i m pr i s on mentf

orno tmor e tha n f

i ve ( 5) ye a r s ort o p a ymen tof a f i ne of not m or e than Fi ve Thousand D ol l ar s ( $5, 000. 00) , orboth. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -5-3 9 (1)(a), ( b ) (20 0 6 ). 

### 15 w oul d be a mi s demeanoru nd er Sect i on 97- 5- 39( 1) , notf r om f el oni ous chi l d abus e under 6 Sect i on 97- 5- 39( 2)
. T he on l y s uppor tE al ey pr ovi des f orhercl ai m thatthe evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci entt o supportt he ver di cti s as f ol l ow s : “N o r at i onal tr i erof f actcoul d concl ude that M s. E aley , th e g o o d m o ther a n d d ay ca re w o rke r, w o u ld inten ti o n all y ab u se a ch il d ; r athe r, the evi dence w as cl eart hatherabandonmentof the chi l d r es ul t ed f

r om poorj udgm entw hi ch
w as sy m p tom ati c o f cli n ical de p ression an d p h y sical de b il it ati o n o r l eg al i n san ity . ” E aley ’s concl us ory s t at ementi s i ns uf f i ci entt o r ebutthe ac tual evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al
. T he evi dence w as s uf

f i ci entt o f

i nd t hatE al ey i nt ent i onal l y t or tur ed orabuse d herchi l d “i n s uch a manner as t o caus e s er i ous bodi l y harm . ” See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -5-3 9 (2)(a) (2 0 0 6 ). T he r es ul to f E al ey’s conductw as the chi l d’ s death, ther ef or e, beca us e the dea th r es ul t ed

### 16

f r om E al ey’ s “comm i s s i on o f t he cr i m e of f el ony chi l d abus e, ” the evi dence s uppor t ed a
c o n v ic tio n fo r c a p ita l m u rd e r. See M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -1 9 (2 )( f) (2 0 0 6 ). ¶ 2 9 . A fte r h e r b a b y w a s fo u n d d e a d , E a ley tu rn e d h e rse lf in to th e p o lice
. S h e v o lu n tar ily
co n fesse d , tel li n g o ffi ce rs th at sh e g av e b irth alo n e in a h o tel ro o m , w rap p ed the n ew b o rn baby i n a comf

or t er , putthe comfort eri n a s ui t cas e, a nd l ef tthe s ui t cas e i n the w oods behi nd herchur ch. T he i nves t i gat i ng of f i cert es t i f

i ed thatthe s ui t cas e f

ound b ehind the chur ch cont ai ned a ga rbage ba g, w hi ch had a comfort erstuf f ed i ns i de i t , and thatthe baby w as wr a p p e d i n th e c o mf

o r t e r . Th e a b o v e - d e s c r i b e d f a c t s w e r e un d i s p u t e d
. Dr . Fe n g Li per f or m ed the aut ops y on the baby. A l though i ni t i al l y, due t o the s t age of decomposi t i on, h e w a s n o t ab le to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e ch ild h a d b e e n b o rn aliv e , afte r le a rn in g th e fa c ts of the ca s e he c oncl uded thatthe caus e of de ath w as m or e l i kel y than notas phyxi a and the
m annerof dea th w as hom i ci de. Par tof hi s concl us i on w as bas ed on Eal ey’ s ow n t es t i m ony thats he hea r d the chi l d cry atl eas tonc e. The j ury hear d D r . L i ’ s t es t i m ony and t es t i m ony from the in v esti g ati n g o ffi ce rs w h o resp o n d ed to the crim e sc en e a n d lat er too k E a ley ’s st at em ents . ¶30. T he j ury w as i ns truct ed that , t o f i nd E al ey gui l ty of capit al m ur der , they m us tf i nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatE al ey ki l l ed hernew born s on w hi l e “e ngaged i n t he
comm i s s i on of

the cr i m e of

f el oni ous abus e of

s ai d i nfant chi l d by w r appi ng hi m i n a beds pr ead, pl aci ng the s ai d beds pr ead c ont ai ni ng the i nf ants on i ns i de a ga rbage ba g, pl aci ng th e in fa n t so n in sid e a c lo se d su itca se , a n d a b a n d o n in g s a id in fa n t so e n c lo se d .” R e a so n a b le j ur or s coul d have concl uded beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatE al ey comm i t t ed capi t al m ur der

### 17

as se t f o rth in the jury instruction
. T h e e v iden ce p rese n ted a t tr ial w as su ffi cien t t o su p p o rt th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. B . W ei ght of t he E vi dence ¶31. E al ey al s o cl ai m s that the ver di ct w as contr ary t o the w ei ght of the evi dence , and s he
as ks the C our tt o r ever s e and r emand f ora new tr i al , t o r ever s e and r endera mansl aught er convi ct i on, ort o r ever s e and r emand f orr es ent enci ng f

ormansl aught er . She cl ai m s thatt he
w ei ghtof

the evi dence di d nots uppor ta f i ndi ng thats he w as s ane orthatshe com m i t t ed
c a p ital m u rd e r. C h a llen g e s to th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e a re g ra n ted o n ly if th e v e rd ict “ is
s o c o n tr a ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e th a t to a llo w it t o sta n d w o u ld
s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” B eas ley , 136 So. 3d at403 ( ¶ 35) ( quot i ng B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844 ( ¶ 18) )
. A gai n, w e vi ew the evi dence “i n the l i gh tm ostfavor abl e t o t he
ver di ct . ” I

d. “Factual di s put es ar e pr oper l y r es ol ved by a j ury and do notm andat e a ne w tr i al
. ” B eas ley , 136 So. 3d at403 ( ¶ 35) ( ci t i ng T e m p le v . S ta te , 4 98 S o. 2d 37 9, 38 2 (M i ss. 1 9 8 6 ))
. 1 . S a n ity ¶32. E al ey cl ai m s that the w ei gh t of the evi dence di d not s uppor t a f i ndi ng that s he w as s ane. T he M ’

N ag hte n t es tf

ordet erm i ni ng i ns ani ty i s w hethert he acc us ed knew r i ghtf r om
w ro n g a t th e tim e th e a c t w a s c o m m itte d
. W o o dh a m v. S ta te , 779 S o. 2 d 15 8, 1 63 (¶27) ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng R u ss e ll v. S ta te , 729 So. 2d 781, 784 ( M i s s . 1997) )
. Speci f i cal l y, t he C o u rth as h eld th at pro v e ins an ity u n d er M ’ N aghten , i tm us tbe pr oven t hat , att he t i m e of the ac t , the acc us ed “w as l abor i ng unders uch def ectof r eas on f r om di s eas e of

the mi nd as ( 1) nott o know the natur e and qua l i ty of the ac the w as doi ng or ( 2) i f he di d know i t , t hat

### 18

he di d notknow thatw hathe w as doi ng w as w r ong. ” W oodham , 779 So. 2d at163 ( ¶ 27) ( quot i ng R o u n dtre e v. S ta te , 5 6 8 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). ¶33. T he det erm i nat i on of a def endant ’ s s ani ty underthe M ’ N ag hte n R ul e i s w i thi n t he pr ovi nce of

the j ury, and t he j ury has di s cr et i on t o acc eptorr ej ectexpertand l ay t es t i m ony o n th e s u b

je c t. W oodham , 7 7 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 6 4 (¶ 2 9 ); R u ss e ll , 72 9 S o. 2d at78 4. A j ury ’s f i nd i ng on a de f

e nd a nt ’ s s a ni ty “ w i l l no tbe r e ve r s e d i f i ti s s up po r t e d b y s ub s t a nt i al evi dence
. ” W

oodham , 779 So. 2d at164 ( ¶ 29) ( ci t i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 551 So. 2d 165, 173 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )). W e h av e h eld th at, “[i ] n insa n ity d efe n se c ase s, p erh ap s m o re tha n an y o ther, a j ury’ s ver di ctoughtt o be gi ven gr eatre s pectand def er ence . ” S a n de rs v. S ta te , 63 So. 3d 497, 503 ( ¶ 18) ( M i s s . 2011) ( ci t i ng L a n e y v. S ta te , 4 8 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 2 , 1 2 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). ¶3 4 . T h ree ex p erts i n fore n sic p sy ch o log y o r p sy ch iatry – D r. O ’B ri en , D r. L o tt , an d D r. M cM i chae l – t es t i f

i ed attr i al
. T hey al l agr eed thatE al ey suf f er ed f r om depr es s i on and anxi ety, butno one opi ned t hatshe w as l egal l y i ns ane. D r . O ’ B r i en t es t i f i ed t hats ubs t ant i al evi dence s ugges t ed thatE al ey may nothave be en cr i m i nal l y r es pons i bl e based on M ’ N aghten , b u t h e c o u ld n o t m a k e a d e ter m in a tio n to a re a s o n a b le d e g re e o f sc ien tific
cert ai nty. D r . Lot tt es t i f i ed thatE al ey’ s depr es s i on m ay have af f ect ed herconductand may have r es ul t ed i n herexer ci s i ng poorj udgm ent ; how ever , h e o pined thatE al ey w oul d have b e e n a b le t o un d erstan d w h at she w as d o ing at the ti m e o f th e o ffen se an d th at sh e w o u ld have be en abl e t o under s t and the di f f er ence betw een ri ghtand w r ong. D r . M cM i chae l tes tified th a t E a ley w a s s u ffe rin g fro m e m o tio n a l d istre ss a t th e tim e o f th e o ffe n se b u t, i n h is opi ni on, the evi dence di d noti ndi cat e tha tE al ey w as unabl e t o under s t and the natur e and q u a lity o f a c tio n s o r t h e d if fe re n c e b e tw e e n ri g h t a n d w ro n g .

### 19

¶3 5. A l tho ug h n on e of the do c t or s t e s t i f

i e d tha tEal e y s a t i s f

i e d the M ’

N ag hte n t es tf

or i ns ani ty, E al ey cl ai m s that , beca us e the doct or s t es t i f i ed thats he w as s uf

f er i ng f r om depr es s i on thatcoul d have a dver s el y af f ect ed herabi l i ty t o r es pond r at i onal l y, the w ei ghtof the cre d ible e v iden ce w as th at sh e w as in san e. In h er b ri ef, E aley d ism isses D r. M cM icha el’s opi ni on as “uns ound” and c oncl udes thatthe othertw o doc t or s a ctual l y cons i der ed hert o be i ns ane, even though t hey di d notsay s o. E al ey’ s concl us i on r egar di ng the doct or s ’ t es t i m ony i s s i m pl y unf

ounded. T he doct or s w er e ques t i oned spe ci f i cal l y aboutthe M ’

N aghten s t andard – w het hers he under s t ood the natur e and qua l i ty of heract i ons atthe t i m e of t he
cr i m e and w hethers he knew r i ghtf r om w r ong – and none of the doct or s coul d s ay thatE al ey
w as i nsane underthats t andar d. Fur ther , E al ey’ s cow or ker s and f ami l y m ember s t es t i f

i ed th a t, i n th e d a y s im m e d iate ly p re c e d in g th e in c id e n t, E a ley w e n t o n w ith life a s u su a l, sh e d id notexhi bi tany odd beha vi or , and, i n thei ropi ni ons , s he knew r i ghtf r om w r ong. ¶36. T he j ury had ampl e evi dence fr om w hi ch i tcoul d det erm i ne thatE al ey w as s ane a t the t i m e of the of f ens e. T he overw hel m i ng evi dence w as t hatE al ey s uf f er ed f r om depr es s i on, b u t no n e o f the e x p erts testi fi ed tha t she w as in san e u n d er M ’ N aghten . Fur ther , none of her f ami l y orcow or ker s t es t i f i ed thats he act ed di f

f er ent l y a ta ny t i m e bef

or e oraf t erthe of f ens e. A g ain, w eigh ing test im o n y an d d eterm ining san ity u n d er M ’ N ag hte n i s w i thi n the pr ovi nce of the j ury, and the j ury’ s f i ndi ng w i l l notbe di sturbed i f i ti s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al
e v id e n c e . W

oodham , 7 7 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 6 4 (¶ 2 9 ); R u ss e ll , 7 2 9 S o . 2 d at 78 4 . T h e jury ’s f i ndi ng thatE al ey w as s ane w as s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi den ce, and the j ury’ s f i ndi ng
w as nots o contr ary t o the evidence thatal l ow i ng i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on an
u n c o n s c io n a b le re s u lt.

### 20 2. Mansl aughter ¶37. E al ey w r i t es t hat“t he w ei ghtof cr edi bl e evi dence w as t hat[ s he] w as l egal l y i ns ane d u ri n g the c o n d u ct co n sti tuti n g the a ll eg ed h o m icid e in this case ” the refo re, “th e jury ’s
ver di ctt o the cont ra r y r es ul t ed i n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” She cl ai m s that , atm os t , t he
ev iden ce su p p o rt ed a m an slau g h ter co n v ict ion
. S h e ask s th e C o u rtto rev erse an d ren d er a
m ans l aught erconvi ct i on ort o r ever s e and r emand f orr es ent enci ng f

orm ans l aught er . E al ey di d notr ai s e the mansl augh t er t heor y bef or e the tr i al courtorr eques ta mansl aught er in s tru c tio n . T h u s , h e r c la im is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d
. See B y ro m v. S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836, 865- 66 ( ¶ 96) ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng E v a n s v . S ta te , 725 So. 2d 613, 632 ( M i s s . 1997) ( I s s ues
n o t p re se n ted to th e tri a l j u d g e are “p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d an d err o r, i f an y [,] is w a iv e d . T h is
ru le is n o t d im in is h e d in a c a p ita l c a s e .” ))
. ¶3 8. Fur the r , the c l a i m i s wi tho utmer i tb e c a us e a p e r s on w ho caus es death dur i ng t he
comm i s s i on of

f el oni ous chi l d abus e ca n be convi ct ed of onl y capi t al m ur der , not
m a n s la u g h te r. See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 97- 3- 27, 99-3- 19( 2) ( f ) (Rev. 2014). Sect i on 97- 3- 27 provides: T he ki l l i ng of

a human bei ng w i thoutm al i ce, by the ac t , pr ocur ement , or cul pabl e negl i gence of

a nother , w hi l e s uch otheri s e ngaged i n the perpetr at i on of any f el ony, e xceptthos e f

el oni es enumer at ed i n Sect i on 97- 3- 19( 2) ( e) and (f) , o r w h il e su ch o ther is att em p ti n g to co m m ita n y felo n y b esid es su ch a s are ab o v e e n u m era ted a n d ex ce p ted, sh all b e m an slau g h ter. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97-3- 27 (Rev. 2014). Fel oni ous chi l d abus e i s i dent i f i ed i n Sect i on 97- 3- 19( 2) ( f ) , thus , i ti s one of

t he f el oni es t hatcannotbe re l egat ed t o m ans l aught er . T her ef or e,
w her e the evi dence s uppor t s a convi ct i on f orchi l d abus e, the r es ul t i ng death cannotbe
m ans l aught er . T he cr i m e i s capi t al m ur dereven i f the def endantact ed “w i thoutany des i gn

### 21

t o ef f ectdeath. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 19( 2) ( f ) (R ev. 2 01 4). A s di s cus s ed above , t he
e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict th a t E a ley c a u se d th e d e a th o f h e r n e w b o rn c h ild w h ile engage d i n the comm i s s i on of f el oni ous chi l d abus e, by w r appi ng hi m i n a comfort er , put t i ng hi m i n a s ui t cas e, and aba ndoni ng the s ui t cas e behi nd herchur ch. T hu s, she cannotbe
c o n v icte d o f m a n sla u g h ter , an d th e iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I I . W het her t he M ’

N ag hte n R ul e on i ns ani t y s houl d be aba ndone d and repl aced w i t h t he M odel P enal C ode def i ni t i on of

i nsani t y. ¶39. E al ey as s ert s f

i r s tthatthe appl i cat i on of the M ’ N ag hte n tes t fo r d e ter m in in g sa n ity
r es ul t ed i n a vi ol at i on of due pr oces s i n he rc as e. H ow ever , s he f ai l ed t o art i cul at e how the ap p li ca ti o n o f M ’

N aghte n deni ed herdue pr oces s r i ght s , ther ef or e, thatcl ai m i s w i thout
m e ri t. See B

yr om , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d a t 88 0 (¶ 1 6 1 ) (“fail u re to c it e re leva n t auth o ri ty o b v iat es [o u r] obl i gat i on t o r evi ew s uch i s s ues ”) ( quot i ng S im m o n s v . S ta te , 8 05 S o. 2 d 452, 487 ( ¶ 90) (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ))
. ¶40. E al ey then ur ges the C ourtt o a bandon the M ’ N ag hte n rul e f

ordet erm i ni ng s ani ty and to ad o p t S e cti o n 4 . 0 1 o f th e M o d el P en al C o d e o f th e A m erican L aw Institu te. T h e C o u rt
r epea t edl y ha s r ej ect ed s i m i l ara r gum ent s a nd de cl i ned t o ab and on M ’ N aghten . S e e , e .g ., B u rk v. S ta te , 506 So. 2d 993, 993 ( M i s s . 1987) (appe l l antur ged C our tt o abandon M ’ N ag hte n R ul e and t o adoptM odel Penal C ode Sect i on 4. 01 as the l egal def i ni t i on of in sa n ity ; C o u rt h e ld th a t th e p ro p o sitio n h a d b e e n c o n sid e re d p re v io u sly a n d th a t M ’ N aghten re m a in e d th e la w ); L a n e y v. S ta te , 421 So. 2d 1216, 1219 ( M i s s . 1982) ( “[ W ] e ar e not
s w ayed t o abandon t he use of the M ’ N ag hte n tes t o f in sa n ity , an d w e h o ld th a t M ’ N aghten re m a in s th e law in th is s tate w ith re g a rd to th e in sa n ity d e fe n se .”); H ill v. S ta te , 339 So. 2d

### 22

1 3 8 2 , 1 3 8 5 -8 6 (M iss
. 1 9 7 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t M ’ N ag hte n “bett erprot ect s s oci ety’ s needs ” than th e M o d el P en al C o d e). Pu rsua n t t o the ru le of sta re d e c isis , w e d en y E aley ’s r eq u e st to abandon M ’

N aghten . C oncl usi on ¶41. T he i s s ues r ai s ed by Eal ey ar e w i thoutmeri t . W e aff i rm E al ey’s convi ct i on and
s ent ence . ¶ 4 2 . CO NVI CTI ON OF CAPI TAL M URD ER AND S ENTENCE OF LI FE I M P RI S ON M E NT I N T HE CU S T OD Y OF TH E M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS , W I THOUT POSS I BI LI TY OF P AROL E, AF F I RM ED . COURT CO S TS , FEE S , AND ASS ES S M ENTS I N THE A M OU NT OF $ 1 , 0 9 8 . 5 0 SH ALL BE W A IV E D B Y T H E C O U R T . A L L T IM E S E R V E D IN P R E T R IA L D E T A IN M E N T IN THI S CAU S E I S CREDI TED AG AI NST THI S S ENTENCE. DI CKI NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, P . J J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , P I E RC E AN D K I NG , J J . , CO NC UR . W AL L E R, C. J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .