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 9 - KA- 0 1 6 7 4 - S CT M ARY Mc QUARTERS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 05/ 2009 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. F ORRES T A. J OHN S ON, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: ADA M S COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : ERI N ELI ZAB ETH PRI DG EN LESL I E S. LEE 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 : J EFFR EY A
. K LI N G FU SS DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : RO NN I E LEE HA RPER 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 - 09/ 30/ 2010 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 W A L L E R , C . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. M a ry M c Q u a rte rs c a lled 9 1 1 afte r d isc o v e rin g h e r b o y frie n d , P e te J a c k so n , d e a d in thei rbedr oom w i th a dee p cuton hi s w r i s t , a gash on t he t op of hi s head, and a s m al l cuton hi s l ef teyebr ow . W hen pol i ce a r r i ved on the s cene , and i n a s ubs equentpol i ce s t at ement l at erthateveni ng, M cQ uart er s i n no w ay i m pl i cat ed her s el f i n the i nci dent
. She s ugges t ed thato ne of

J acks on’ s cl os e f

r i ends m ay have been r es pons i bl e. O nl y i n s ubs equentpol i ce sta tem e n ts d id M c Q u a rte rs d isc lo se th a t sh e a n d J a c k so n h a d e n g a g e d in a v io len t d o m e stic d isp u te th e n ig h t b e fo re sh e d isc o v e re d h is b o d y , an d th a t in se lf-d e fe n se sh e h a d c u t h is

### See Wea thersb y v. Sta te , 165 Mi ss . 207, 147 So. 481 ( 1933). 1 

### The t es timony and atte nding dire ct quote s reference d in ¶

¶ 3- 8 infra , arefrom 2 

### McQuart er s’ s tri alte stim ony. 2 fo re a rm a n d th ro w n m u lti p le g las s o b jec ts a t h im . T h e c o ro n e r a n d fo re n sic p a th o lo g ist b o th
c o n c l u d e d th a tJ a c k s o n d i e d f r o m b l o o d l o s s r e s u l t i n g f r o m a s t a b wo u n d t o h i s f o r e a r m. ¶2
. M cQ uar t er s w as i nd i c t e d f orthe mur de rof

J a c ks on . A ttr i a l , the Ci r c ui tCour t of A dams C ount y, M i s s i s s i pp i , gr a nt e d M cQ uart er s a di r ect ed ver di ctof acqui t t al on the murde r char ge, butal l ow ed the cas e t o pr ocee d on the l es s erof f ens e of mansl aught er . A j ury f ound M cQ uart er s gui l ty of

m ans l aught er . T he ci r cui tcour tsent ence d hert o tw enty year s i n t he
cus t ody of

the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons (M D O C ) , w i th fi f t een yea r s t o s erve and the rem ai ning fi ve y ears su sp en d ed, t o b e served on form al , report i ng , po st -r el ease
s uper vi s i on . Fol l owi ng the d e ni a l o f h e r“ M ot i on f

ora New Tr i a l , ” M c Q ua r t e r s f i l ed a “N ot i ce of

A ppeal
. ” O n appea l , M cQ uart er s cont ends thatthe ci r cui tcour ts houl d have appl i ed the W

eat hers by rul e and gr ant ed hera di r ect ed ver di ctof acqui t t al on t he 1
m ans l aught erchar ge. FACTS ¶3. M cQ uart er s and J acks on l i ved t ogether , on and of f , forfourt een yea r s . O n Sept ember 28, 2007, the coupl e had j us tr es um ed l i vi ng t ogether
. M cQ uart er s t es t i f i ed thatJ acks on had 2
arr i ved home w i th di nnerthateveni ng atar ound 9: 00 or9: 30 p. m . Bef or e they bega n eat i ng, Jac k so n ’s fri en d , K ev in B u ch an an , arri v ed an d “a sk ed [Jack so n ] d id h e w an t t o g o to w o rk the nextm orni ng w i th hi m and anotherf r i end[ , ]
. . . C l ar ence B r ow n . . . . ” A f t erB uchana n

### McQuart er s t es ti fi ed that “Iwas just

tr ying t o save my own li febec aus e [ Ja cks on] 3 

### was real d ifferent th at nig ht. H e was n ot h is usu al self – [it] was n ot o ur u sual fig ht.” B r andy B ernar d, the t enantof the dupl ex adj oi ni ng M cQ uart er s ’ s hom e, t ol d pol i ce 4 of f i cer s thats he heard “loud noi s es , ” “f us s i ng, ” and “ the w al l s ki nd of bum pi ng” at a p p ro x im a tely 9 :1 7 p .m . B e rn a rd tes tified th a t th e n o ise c o n tin u e d fo r “ m a y b e tw e n ty , thirty m in u te s .” D u ri n g th a t tim e , B e rn a rd s ta te d th a t th e “ [o ]n ly th in g I h e a rd w a s [J a c k s o n ], I h ea rd h im say , ‘B * * * * , I’l l kil l yo u , ’ or so m ethin g li k e that. ” A cc o rdin g to D etec ti v e Je rry For d of the N at chez Pol i ce D epart m ent , B ernar d t ol d hi m t hat“she hear d [ J acks on] cur s i ng 

### 3 had l ef t , M cQ uart er s a nd J acks on began a r gui ng becaus e “i n the pas t , [ B r ow n] had al w ays
caus ed a l ot of probl ems [ beca us e] he w as a drug deal erand [ w as ] al w ays t aki ng al l of [J a c k s o n ’s ] m o n e y .” J a c k s o n th e n “ g o t a n g ry , a n d . . . a s k e d m e to s ta y o u t o f h is b u s in e s s ,” atw hi ch poi nts he t ol d hi m thathe coul d m ove bac k out“i f you’ r e notgoi ng t o change your lif e s ty le a n d re s p e c t s o m e o f m y o p in io n s . . . .” ¶ 4
. At th a t p o i n t , J a c k s o n “ t o o k a b i g g l a s s c o f f e e t a b l e a n d p u s h e d i t . . . o n t o p o f my f oot [ , ] ” s hatt er i ng the gl as s . A f t err emovi ng herf

ootfr om hershoe, M cQ uart er s att empt ed t o l eave t hr ough t he f

r ontdoor, butJac ks on “t ook t he bi g fl oorm ountt el evi s i on and pus hed i tovert o pr eventm e f

r om l eavi ng . . . . ” M cQ uart er s then began runni ng dow n the hal l , but
s l i pped and f

el l , and J acks on: gr abbed me and s tar t ed choki ng m e around my nec k , a n d I w a s a sk in g h im to pl eas e l etm e go, buthe w oul dn’ tand I st ar t ed gett i ng di zzy, gas pi ng f or b re a th
. S o I r e a c h e d o v e r a n d
. . . g ra b b e d a p iec e o

f g la ss . . . w ith my left h a n d a n d stu c k
. . . h im w ith it , [ ] buthe s t i l l di dn’ tr emove hi s hand. 3 ( E m phas i s added. ) Jacks on r el eas ed M cQ uart er s ’ s neck onl y w hen s he bi thi s hand. She th e n c o n tin u e d to a ttem p t to ru n d o w n th e h a ll, b u t Ja c k so n g ra b b e d h e r le g , sta tin g , “I w ill k il l yo u , low d o w n b lack b * * * * , if y o u d o n ’tstay ou t o f m y bu sine ss.” A ft er M cQ u arters 4s ayi ng, ‘ Y ou m other ****er
. ’ [ B ernar d] s t at ed s he hea r d f urni tur e turni ng overand tum bl i ng as though s om eone w as i n a s truggl e. ” Ber nar d t es t i f i ed f ur therthats he had he ar d a s econd a l t e r c a t i o n a tM c Qu a r t e r s ’ s h o me a r o u n d 1 1 : 4 7 p . m. 

### Conner had be en l iving at

McQuart er s’ s hom e f

or a pproxi mate ly onemont

h. 5 

### In Conne r’ s f

ir st poli cest at em ent , hema de no m ention of McQuart er s dis cus sing her 6 

### alte rc ation wi th J ackso n. In his se cond pol ic e s tate me nt, ac cording t o Det ec tive Ford, Conner provi ded that

McQuart er s “ tol d him

she did som ething re albad. Then she s tate d she cut [Jack son ’s] wrist andhit h im in th e head .” By cont ra st , a cc ording to De tective F ord , Co nn er’s statements to po lice provide d that 7 

### M cQ u arte rs “to ld h im do n’t h elp [Jack son ], and sh e left.” Acco rdin g to tho se statements, when Conner

aske d Jac kson if

he needed help, Ja cks on told him that he would be a llri ght and a ske d him

to l eave. Conner

the n went

to s pend the ni ght at anothe r a unt’ s hom e. 4 b e g a n k i c k i n g J a c k s o n , h e r e l e a s e d h e ra n d f e l l a g a i n s tth e wa l l , th e n “ n e x tth i n g I k n e w we
w er e both s t andi ng i n the ki t chen
. . . a nd he
. . . s how ed m e hi s a r m a nd he s ai d, ‘ L ook, w hat you di d. ’ ” A tthatt i m e, J acks on w as notbl eedi ng pr of us el y, “[ j ] us tdr i ppi ng[ , ] ” and w hen M c Q u a rt e rs a s k e d if

h e n e e d e d m e d ic a l a tte n tio n h e re p lie d th a t “ it w ill b e a ll r ig h t.” ¶ 5
. A c c or di ng t o M c Q ua r t e r s , “ n o r ma l l y whe n we f i g h to ne of

us l e a ve s . . . . So [ J a c k s o n ] a s k e d me . . . c a n I j u s tg o a h e a d o n a n d c a t c h s o me f r e s h a i ra n d c o o l o f

f a n d c o me b ac k lat er.” S h e a g ree d , a n d as sh e w as c h an g ing cloth es, he r ne p h ew , P atri ck C o n n er,
arr i ved. M cQ uart er s “t ol d [ C onner ] thatI di d s om ethi ng bad. T hat
. . . [ J acks on] and I got

5 i nt o a bi g f

i ght , and I thi nk I cuthi m on the arm . ” B ef or e l eavi ng, M cQ uart er s i nf or m ed 6 J acks on thatC onner ’ s f r i end, D i etr i ch J ohns on S i ngl et on, w as t aki ng heri nt o t ow n and that C onnerw as goi ng t o s t ay athom e w i th hi m . U pon l eavi ng , J acks on “w as s i t t i ng on t he 7
c o u c h . . . w ith th e w a s h c lo th . . . o n h is h a n d s [,]” a n d “ s a id h e w o u ld b e o k a y . . . .”

### McQuart er s de nie d being upse t and cr ying. 8 

### 5 ¶6. Si ngl et on dr opped M cQ uart er s of f at a l ocal r es t aur ant , T as t e of C hi cago, at10: 40 p . m. M c Qu a r t e r s t h e n s t a y e d u p a l l n i g h tt a l k i n g wi t h f r i e n d s a n d d r i n k i n g b e e r . At
a p p ro x im a tely 5 :0 0 a .m . o n S e p tem b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 , M c Q u a rte rs c a lled C o n n e r “ [t] o a sk h im how [ J acks on] w as and t o come pi ck me up. [ C onner ] s ai d he had t o getup and go t o w or k. H e di dn’ thave t i m e t o pi ck m e up. ” Thata f t ernoon, M cQ uart er s a rr i ved atthe Lunch B ox
r es t aur antand arr anged t o r ece i ve a r i de home f r om empl oyee Cat hy A l l en. A l l en t es t i f i ed that , f ol l ow i ng hers hi f

t , s he dr ove M cQ uart er s hom e and “w e di dn’ tdi s cus s anythi ng, but [ M cQ uart er s ] w as ver y upset , and she w oul d nott el l m e w hatw as w r ong w i th her
. . . . She
wa s c ry i n g . ” Ac c o r d i n g t o Al l e n , s h e d r o p p e d M c Qu a r t e r s o f f a r o u n d 4 : 1 5 o r4 : 2 0 p . m. 8 ¶7. U pon arr i vi ng hom e, M cQ uart er s “w ent s tr ai ght t o the s i nk and w as hed [ s om e] f i s h, and [ C onner ] came i n behi nd m e, and he w as t el l i ng me thathe w as s orry abouts om ethi ng. S o I t o ld h im I w il l t alk to h im
. . . afte r I c o o k e d .” B u t sev era l m inu tes l ater, M cQ u arters
s t art ed t o “w onderw hathe’ s sorry about
. So I w entback out s i de t o as k hi m w her e w as [Jack so n ] , an d [C o n n er] told m e h e w a s in th e h o u se.” S h o rt ly the rea ft er, M cQ u arters d isc o v e re d Ja c k so n o n h is k n e e s a t th e fo o t o f th e ir b e d , u n re sp o n siv e . A c c o rd in g to C onner ’ s thi r d pol i ce s t at ement , M cQ uart er s then came out s i de and s t at ed that“s om ebody ki l l ed” J acks on. ¶ 8
. W h e n p o l i c e a r r i v e d o n th e s c e n e , Be rn a r d t e s t i f i e d th a tM c Qu a r t e r s “ s t e p p e d i n t o my apart m ent. . . and s he j us ts ai d thats om eone ha d ki l l ed [ J acks on]
. ” W hen B ernar d “as ked

### Off ic er Bar ber te stif ie d that there we re“hugepuddle s [ of bl ood] on thekit che n fl oor, 9 

### andthere w as on e big tow el onthe flo or th at was co mpletelysoak ed inblo od .” 6 w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d ,” s h e tes tified th a t M c Q u a rte rs “ w a s lik e . . . sh e d id n ’t d o a n y th in g to h im . T h e y . . . h a v e g o t in a fi g h t a n d . . . s h e o n ly c u t h im o n th e w ri s t o r s o m e th in g . . . .” M cQ uart e r s a dmi t t e d tha twhen s he s po ke wi th po l i c e o f f i c e r s o n the s c e ne , s he d i d not
m ent i on herpr i oral t er cat i on w i t h Jackson. A ccor di ng t o O f f i cerD anny B arberof

t he N at chez P oli ce D epart m ent, M cQ uart ers : t ol d m e thatshe had jus tgot t en i n, and s he w enti n the hous e and obs erved bl ood al l overthe hous e, a nd s he w al ked thr ough the hous e, and that ’ s w hen s he f ound [ J acks on] i n the bedr oom , and he appear ed t o be dec eas ed. T hat s o m e o n e h a d p o s s ib ly h it h im in th e h e a d
. . . . O ffic e r B a rb e r a d d e d th a t M c Q u a rte rs in n o w a y h a d im p lica ted h e rse lf in th e in c id e n t. D et ect i ve Fo r d t e s t i f

i e d tha t“ f

r om w ha tI h a d be e n t ol d, [ M c Q ua r t e r s ] s a i d s omeo ne had br oke i n he ra part m entand ki l l ed herboyf r i end. ” M cQ uart er s f

ur theracknow l edged thats he had i ndi cat ed t o t he pol i ce of f i cer s thatJ acks on’ s cl os e f r i end, E dw ar d Pal m er , neede d t o be
cons i der ed as a sus pect . A ccor di ng t o D et ect i ve For d, w hen he “ as ked [ M cQ uart er s ] i f s he knew [ w ho] m ay have done that , . . . s he s ai d thatthe onl y per s on s he coul d r eca l l i s m aybe [ Pal m er ] beca us e of

[ J acks on] and [ Pal m er ] havi ng s om e type of ar gum entovers om e money
o r s o m e th in g o f t h a t n a tu re .” ¶ 9
. M u l t i p l e wi tn e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a ta s u b s e q u e n ti n v e s t i g a t i o n o f M c Qu a r t e r s ’ s h o me
r evea l ed gene r al di s arr ay, w i th l ar ge amount s of bl ood i n t he kit chen, hal l w ay, and l i vi ng 9

### Ad ams Co unty co ron er James Lee d escribedit as “a ho rrifyin g scen e . . . .” 10 

### Both Of ficer Barb er

and De te ctiveFord t es ti fi ed that Ja cks on’s hea d appe ar ed 11 

### extre me ly c le an, as if

s ome one had wipe d the bl ood off . Le e a dded that , “ a pe rs on who had as muc h bl ood in the hal lway that Ihave se en, this guy shoul d have bee n c over ed wi th bl ood all ov er somewhere, b ut ap parently h e hadbeencleanedor so methin g.” 7 r oom , i n addi t i on t o t he hall w ay w al l s . T he pool of bl ood i n the l i vi ng r oom cont ai ned 10 br oke n gl a s s , a ndthe r e was a l s o a b r ok e n gl a s s c of f e e t a bl e ; a b r ok e n l a mp; thr ee l i quor bot t l es , one of

w hi ch w as cover ed i n bl ood; a broken ceram i c ange l l yi ng on the f l oor ; an
overturned t el evi s i on; and a br oken r emot e contr ol
. W hen O f f i cerB arberl ocat ed J acks on, h e w a s s lu m p e d o v e r th e fo o t o f th e b e d w ith a d e e p c u t on h is w rist, a g a sh o f a p p ro x im a tely tw o in c h e s o n th e to p o f h is h e a d , a s m a ll c u t o n h is lef t ey e b ro w , an d “ n o p u lse , . . . h is 11 b o d y w a s c o ld .” ¶10. B oth L ee and D r . St even H ayne, t ender ed and accep t ed as an expert i n the f i el d of f or ens i c pathol ogy, t es t i f i ed thatJackso n had di ed f r om bl ood l os s r es ul t i ng f r om a s t ab
w ound t o the l ef

tf or earm , and rul ed the dea th a homi ci de. A ccor di ng t o D r . H ayne, t he
w ound “ext end[ ed] t o a depth of a ppr oxi m at el y s i x i nches , and the s t abbi ng i ns trum entw ent thr ough m aj orbl ood ves s el s i ncl uding the l ef tr adi al art ery . . . . ” D r . H ayne’ s aut ops y of J acks on al s o r evea l ed “a conce ntr at i on of ethyl al cohol
. . . of

0. 060 p er cent , ” and “ a tr ace
a m o u n t o f c o c a in e .”

### At tri al , McQuart er s ac knowle dged that Ja cks on act ual ly “c am e homearound 9: 00 12 

### or 9 :30 . . . .” At tri al , Mc Quarters adm itte d that t his st at em ent

was untr ue. 13 

### At tri al , Mc Quarters te stif ie d that t his finalquote d se nte ncewas untr ue. 14 

### 8 ¶1 1. M cQ uar t er s ’ s fi r s tpol i ce s t a t e ment , gi ve n a t10 : 00 p. m. on Se pt e mber29 , 2007, pr ovi ded thatJ acks on had arr i ved home w i th f ood at10: 30 p. m . on S ept ember28, 2007. 12 M c Q u a rt e rs s ta te d th a t s h e d id n o t e a t “ [b ]e c a u s e I w a n te d to g o u p to T a s te o f C h ic a g o .” 13 A fte r g e tti n g a rid e fro m S in g leto n , M c Q u a rte rs “ sta y e d u p tow n all n i[g h t] F rid a y u p u n til

. . . l at erSatur day eveni ng. ” U pon r ece i vi ng a r i de hom e f r om A l l en, M cQ uart ers ent er ed thr ough the ki t chen door a nd “s t art ed f ryi ng f i s h w i thouteven l ooki ng ar ound. ” Soon ther eaf t er , s he bega n “f

eel i ng f unny” and w entout s i de t o as k C onneri f he had s een J acks on. A ccordi ng t o M cQ uart ers : [b ]ec a u se h e sa id to m e th a t h e w a s o n th e so fa [a]sle e p w h e n I ta lk e d w ith [C o n n e r] fro m T a ste o f C h ica g o a ro u n d 5 :0 0 [a.m ., ] I w e n t in [a n d ] . . . sa w a ll of the bl ood on t he ki t chen f l oor . . . . T hen I ent er ed the bed[ r oom ] [ and] fo u n d [J a c k s o n ] o n h is k n e e s w ith a b ig g a s h o n th e b a c k o f h is h e a d .[ ] 14 M c Q u a rte rs th e n c a lled 9 1 1 . A t trial, M c Q u a rte rs a d m itt e d th a t, i n h e r firs t p o lice sta tem e n t,
s he had notm ent i oned heral t er cat i on w i th J acks on, thatJ acks on had bee n choki ng her , or th a ts h e h a d c u tJ a c k s o n o n th e f o r e a r m. ¶12. M cQ uart er s w as arr es t ed on Sept ember30, 2007. H ers econd pol i ce s t at ement , gi ven at1: 00 p. m . thatday, pr ovi ded thaton Sept ember28, 2007: my f i a n c é [ J a c k s o n ] a n d I g o ti n t o a f i g h ta b o u tmo n e y s o me o n e o we d h i m. [Ja c k so n ] be g a n to k ick m e o n th e leg a n d th e n h it m e o n th e h e a d w ith h is fist. [ J acks on] grabbed the gl as s cof f ee t abl e and turn[ ed] i tover , br eaki ng the

### In he r s ec ond poli cest at em ent , McQuart er s adm itte dly ma de no m ention of J ac kson 15 

### choking her
. 9 gl as s . I pi cked up a pi ece of the gl as s w i th m y l ef

thand and c ut[ J acks on] on t he ar m . A s I tr i e d t o g o o ut. . . [ J a c ks on ] kn oc ke d the t . v. do w n a nd pr event ed me f

r om l eavi ng. . . . [ J acks on] gra bbed m e by t he l eg and I s t art ed ki cki ng as ki ng hi m t o l etme go. A f t erhe turned m e . . . l oos e[ ] I w entby the 15 bl ack s t and, and gr abbed e verythi ng thatw as br eaka bl e and I s t art ed thr ow i ng [it] a t [J a c k s o n ]. I th re w a H y p n o tic [liq u o r] b o ttle a n d a c e ra m ic a n g e l . . . . [ J acks on] w as bl eedi ng and I as ked hi m i f he w ant ed t o go t o t he hos pi t al and he s ai d no beca us e i t ’ s notthatba d. I met[ C onner ] a tthe door
. I t ol d hi m that I had done s om ethi ng bad.
. . . [ C onn er]
. . . as ked [ J acks on] t o go t o the hos pi t al , but[ J acks on] t ol d hi m [ “] no[ ”] thathe’ l l be ok. T her eaf t er , M cQ uart er s gota ri de f r om S i ngl et on, “par t i ed .
. . unt i l the nextday[ , ] ” r etur ned hom e, and “s t art ed f

r yi ng f i s h. ” A tthatpoi nt , s he “thoug ht i tw as s tr ange t o nothear [ J acks on’ s ] voi ce. So I w entout s i de t o t al k t o [ C onner ] buthe w as on the phone, s o I w ent back i nsi de
. . . , that ’ s w hen I not i ced a l l of the bl ood overthe f

l oor . ” A f

t erdi s cover i ng J acks on i n t he bedr oom , s he ca l l ed 911. ¶13. M cQ uart er s ’ s thi r d pol i ce s t at ement , gi ven on O ct ober4, 2007, pr ovi ded thataf t er the
a lterc a tio n w ith Ja c k so n , h e r c lo th in g h a d b e e n b lo o d -sta in e d , so sh e h a d p lac e d h e r p a n ts
a n d sh o e s “ in th e g y m sa c k in [C o n n e r’s ] ro o m [,] ” a n d p u t h e r so c k s, sh irt, a n d tw o to w e ls in th e w a sh in g m a c h in e . A fte r c h a n g in g clo th e s, M c Q u a rte rs c a lled C o n n e r a n d “ to ld h im th a t I h a d d id so m e th in g . . . th a t I h a d c u t [Ja c k so n ] on h is a rm b u t [Ja c k so n ] sa id th a t it
w as n’ tthatbad w hen I as k hi m i f he w ant ed t o go t o t he hospi t al
. ” T he s t at ementconcl uded thatw hen s he had l ef

tf orT as t e of

C hi cago, J acks on “w as s i t t i ng on the s of a w i th a t ow el on his arm . ” T his thir d p oli ce st at em ent di d n ot m enti on Jackson cho king M cQ uart ers .

### “For pur pose s of thi s se ction, m ans la ughte r sha llbec onsi der ed a lesser inc lude d 16 

### offen se of murd er . . . .” M iss. Co de Ann . § 9 9-1 9-5 (2) (R ev. 2 00 7). Seeals o Mis s. Code Ann. § 97- 3-19( 3) ( Rev. 2006) ( “[ a] n indic tm ent f or murder
. . . sha llse rveas noti ceto t he def endan t that t

he indic tm ent

may inc ludeany and al l l es se r included of fe nse s ther eof

, inc luding . . . m ans la

ughte r. ”)
. 10 ¶14. O n O ct ober2, 2008, M cQ uart er s w as i ndi ct ed, al ong w i th C onner , under M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97-3- 19 for“act i ng i n concert , each w i th t he ot her , [ t o] w i l f ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y, fe lo n io u s ly a n d w ith m a lic e a fo re th o u g h t, k ill a n d m u rd e r [ J a c k s o n ] . . . .” ¶15. M cQ uart er s ’ s j ury tr i al c om m enced on A ug ust4, 20 09
. A ft er the S t at e re s t ed, M cQ uart er s m oved f

ora di r ect ed ver di ctof acqui t t al
. T he ci r cui tcourtf ound t hat M cQ uart er s w as ent i t l ed t o a di r ect ed ver di ct , s t at i ng: [ t ] he S t at e h as c hos en t o pr ocee d underan i ndi ctm entw i th the l anguage chargi ng [ M cQ uart ers ] w i th w hat’ s r eferred t o as del i ber at e des ign m ur der
. M ali ce afo retho u g h t m u rd e r. T h at i s the lang u ag e o f th e ind ictm en t very c le a rl y . . . . I

twoul d appe arto the [ c] our tthat[

depr aved hear tm urder] w ould have be en the p roper char ge . . . . T h e S tate h a s p re se n ted a m p le ev iden ce w h ich w o u ld g ive a p ri m a fa cie c ase o f a d ep ra v e d h e a rt m u rde r. T h e p ro b lem is th a t [M c Q u a rte rs] h a s n o t b e e n p u t o n n o tice o f th a t. (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) B u t th e c irc u it co u rt a d d e d th a t:
u n d e r S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -5 ,[ ] cle a rly [M c Q u a rte rs is ] on n o tice a s to 16 m ans laught erw h ich is c lea rly a le ss e r in c lu d e d o ffe n se , an d m a n sla u g h ter is es s ent i al l y the ki l l i ng of a human bei ng w i thoutm al i ce i n the hea tof pas s i on b u t in a c ru e l o r u n u su a l m a n n e r, . . . w ith o u t au th o rity o f la w a n d n o t in n e c e s s a ry s e lf

d e fe n s e . V e ry c le a rl y , the Stat e has pr es ent ed am pl e ev i dence i n thatregard
. ( E m ph asi s added. ) T hus , the ca s e pr ocee ded on the l es s erof f ens e of m ans l aught er . A f

t er the St at e r es t ed f

i nal l y, M cQ uart er s r enew ed herm ot i on f ordi r ect ed ver di ct , w hi ch the circu itco u rtd en ied. T h e jury fo u n d M cQ u arters g u il ty o f m an slau g h ter, an d the c ir cu itco u rt

### 11

s ent ence d he rt o tw enty ye ar s i n the cus t ody of the M D O C , w i th f

i f t een ye ar s t o s erve and the rem ai ning fi ve y ears suspend ed , to be served o n form al , report i ng , po st -r el ease
s uper vi s i on . Fol l owi ng the d e ni a l o f h e r“ M ot i on f

ora New Tr i a l , ” M c Q ua r t e r s f i l ed a

“ N o tic e o f A p p e a l.” I S S UE ¶1 6
. T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: W h e th e r th e c irc u it c o u rt c o m m itt e d re v e rsib le e rro r w h e n it d e c lin e d to a p p ly the W eat hers by rul e and, ther ef or e, g rantM cQ uart er s a di r ect ed ver di ctof acqui t t al on t he mansl aught erchar ge. A N A L Y S IS ¶17. M cQ uart er s cont ends thats he “w as the onl y e yew i tnes s t o the homi ci de[ , ]
. . . t es t i f i ed th a t sh e inju re d [Ja c k so n ] in se lf-d e fe n se [,] ” an d tha t su c h tes tim o n y w a s n o t “s u b sta n tially
c o n tra d icte d in m a ter ial p a rticu lar s” b y h e r p rio r p o lice sta tem e n ts. A c c o rd in g to M c Q u a rte rs, h e r p o lice sta tem e n ts, “ tak e n in d iv id u a lly , o n ly d e sc rib e a p a rticu lar p o in t in t i m e dur i ng the ent i r e tw o- day s pan of F r i day eveni ng t o S atur day eve ni ng. E ach s t at ement inclu d ed m o re d etail than the p rev iou s. T ak en as a w h o le, the s tat em en ts t ell the e n ti re
s equenc e of

event s . . . . ” A s s uch, M cQ uart er s ar gues that“[ g] i ven the uncontr adi ct ed
s t at ement s and evi dence of m at eri al f act s pr es ent ed attr i al , the tr i al courterr ed i n not
a p p ly [in g ] W

eat hers by a n d in fin d in g th e re w a s s u ffic ien t ev id e n c e to in stru c t th e ju ry to
c o n s id e r m a n s la u g h te r.”

### 12

¶18. T he St at e r es ponds thatM cQ uart er s “i s as ki ng thi s C our tt o i gnor e al l evi dence , s ave fo r h e r a c c o u n t o f t h e e v e n ts in q u e s tio n a n d o v e rt u rn th e r e a s o n a b le ju ry ’s v e rd ic t o f g u ilty .” A ccor di ng t o t he St at e: [ t ] o do thi s , th[ i s ] C our tw oul d nece s s ar i l y have t o s etas i de herconf l i ct i ng stat em en ts t o p o li ce , h e r o w n test im o n y that p o rt ion s o f he r st atem en ts w ere u n tru e , th e p h y sic a l e v id e n c e o f th e c rim e s c e n e , th e fa c t th a t sh e a ttem p ted to di r ects us pi ci on a ta notherpe r s on f orthe cr i m e, and w el l
- s ett l ed ca s e l aw that s ays thatw hen there i s conf l i ct i ng evi dence , the W eat hers by rul e does not appl y. F u rth e rm o re , the S tate p o se s th e fo llo w in g q u e stio n , “ [e]v e n if, fo r th e sa k e o f a rg u m e n t, all otherevi dence and t es t i m ony w er e t o be i gnor ed, w hi ch of [ M cQ uart er s ’ s ] ver s i ons i s t he one thats houl d be ac cept ed?” ¶ 1 9
. T h is C o u r t h a s s ta te d th a t, “ W eat hers by
. . . i s no thi ng mor e tha n a pa r t 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 cour t s m us tdeci de w hetheri 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 entof acqui t t al as a mat t erof l aw . ” Johnson
v. S ta te , 987 So. 2d 420, 425 ( M i s s . 2008) ( quot i ng J a c kso n v. S ta te , 551 So. 2d 1 32 , 136 ( M i s s . 1989) )
. “W hen cons i der i ng a mot i on f ordi r ect ed ver di ct , al l evi dence i ntr oduced by the S tat e m u st be ac ce p ted a s tru e, t o g ethe r w ith all rea so n ab le i n feren ce s the refrom
. If th ere i s s uf f i ci entevi dence t o supporta gui l ty ver di ct , the mot i on f ordi r ect ed ver di ctm us tbe
overrul ed. ” G re e n v. S ta te , 6 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 6 7 , 1 7 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶20. “[ W ] e have l ong hel d that ‘ the j ury has no r i ght t o di s r egar d arbi tr ar i l y evi dence t hat is u n c o n tr a d ic te d a n d n o t u n re a s o n a b le o r i m p ro b a b le o n its fa c e .’ . . . W eat hers by i s butan el abor at i on of

t hi s vi ew . ” He ide l v . S ta te , 587 So. 2d 835, 839 ( M i s s . 1991) ( quot i ng

### 13

Fo rte n b e rr

y v. S ta te , 2 1 6 M iss . 2 4 3 , 2 5 1 , 6 2 S o . 2 d 3 2 5 , 3 2 7 (1 9 5 3 ); McL e o d v. S ta te , 140 M is s . 8 9 7 , 9 0 1 , 1 0 5 S o . 7 5 7 (1 9 2 5 ))
. W eat hers by p ro v id e s th a t: the e stab li sh ed rule i n th is stat e [i s] th at w h ere th e d efe n d an t or th e d efe n d an t’ s w itn e ss e s a re th e o n ly e y e w itn e ss e s to th e h o m icid e , the ir v e rsio n , if re a so n a b le, m u st b e a c c e p ted a s tru e , u n les s s u b sta n tia lly c o n tra d icte d in m at er i al part i cul ar s by a cr edi bl e w i tnes s orw i tnes s es f orthe s t at e, orby the phys i cal f

act s orby the f

act s of comm on know l edge. W eat hers by , 1 4 7 S o . a t 4 8 2
. See a lso B la n ks v . S ta te , 547 So. 2d 29, 33 ( M i s s . 1989) ( “[ w ] her e the def

endanti s t he onl y eyew i tnes s t o a sl ayi ng, hi s ver s i on m us tbe re a so n a b le
a n d c re d ib le bef

or e he i s ent i t l ed to a n acqui t t al underthe [ W eat hers by ] ru le.” ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). ¶21. B ut “[ i ] ti s a r ar e ca s e thatm eet s al l of the r equi r ement s of

the [ W eat hers by ] ru le .” S a rta in v. S ta te , 311 So. 2d 343, 345 ( M i s s . 1975) ( quot i ng Mu rp hy v . S ta te , 232 M i s s . 424, 4 3 0 , 9 9 S o . 2 d 5 9 5 , 5 9 8 (1 9 5 8 ))
. See al s o Fa irle y v. S ta te , 87 1 S o. 2d 12 82 , 12 84 (M i ss. 2003) ( quot i ng B u c h a n a n v. S ta te , 567 So. 2d 194, 196 ( M i s s . 1990)) ( “[ d] ef endant s have of t en ci t ed and a r gued appl i cat i on of the W eat hers by [ r ] ul e, butsel dom have they pr evai l ed. U su all y , a fa ctua l i ss u e is p res en ted w h ich re q u ir es su b m issi o n o f th e c ase to the jury
. ”). U n d er W eat hers by , di f

f er ence s i n mer e de t a i l , no t“contr ol l i ng s ubs t ance [ , ] ” ar e perm i s s i bl e. W eat hers by , 147 So. at482. B utthi s C our thas s t at ed f urt her t hatthe W

eat hers by ru le is i nappl i cabl e “w her e the defenda nt’s cond uct and st atem ents f ollow i ngthe kil l i ngare i ncons is t ent

w i th his ver

s i on of the eve nt

s as r ecounted at

tr i al
. ” G r een , 631 So. 2d at174 ( ci t i ng B lanks , 5 4 7 S o . 2 d a t 3 4 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o Fair ley , 871 So. 2d at1284 (“[ w ] her e conf

l i ct i ng s t or i es ar e gi ven abouta homi ci de by the ac cus ed, the W e at hers by

### 14

[r] u le d o e s n o t ap p ly
. . . . ” ); B lanks , 547 So. 2d at33 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( appl i cat i on of the W eathers by rul e i s pr e c l ud e d “ w he r e the a c c us e d, f ol l owi ng the s l a yi ng , gi ve s c on f l i ct i ng
v ersion s o f ho w the k il li n g too k p lace , o r i n it ial ly d en ies th e a ct. ”). ¶22. T hi s C our tf

i nds s al i entf

actual s i m i l ar i t i es be tw een the ca s e s ub j udi ce and S a rta in
. I n S a rta in : [ t ] he appel l ant [
- w i f

e] , w i thi n a s hor tw hi l e, r el at ed thr ee ve r s i ons of w hathad tr ans pi r ed: ( 1) thata m an w ho tr i ed t o s el l [ the vi ct i m - hus band] s om e w hi s ky c a me i n , a n a r g u me n te n s u e d a n d th e ma n s u p p o s e d l y s t a b b e d [ th e v i c t i mhus band] on the f

r onts t eps ; ( 2) thata w om an do w n t he str eetw ho had bee n tryi ng t o go w i th [ the vi ct i m - hus band] st abbed hi m ; and (3) t hata m an dr es s ed i n bl ack c ame i nt o the r oom , jum ped on the bed, s t art ed f i ght i ng w i th [ the vi ct i m - hus band] , and as t hey w r es t l ed f r om t he bedr oom t o t he f r ontdoor , the ma n s t a b b e d h i m. S a rta in , 311 So. 2d at344. Fol l ow i ng herar r es tbas ed upon thes e conf l i ct i ng ver s i ons , the
a p p e lla n t- w if

e w a s in d ic te d a n d c o n v ic te d fo r th e m u rd e r o f h e r h u s b a n d
. See id
. at343- 44. O n appea l , the appel l ant - w i f e ar gued thathe rw r i t t en s t at ementgi ven t o pol i ce f ol l ow i ng her arrest p rov ided “a m p le pro o f th at th e k il li n g w as ju sti fi ed in tha t she w as a cti n g in n ec essa ry
se lf-d e fe n se ; th a t itw a s d o n e w h ile s h e w a s re p e lli n g th e [v ictim -h u sb a n d ’s ] a tte m p t to
comm i ta f

el ony upon he r ; a nd, thatunderthe W eat hers by rul e s he w as ent i t l ed t o a di r ect ed
ver di ctof

acqui t t al
. ” Id . at 3 4 4 . T h is C o u rt re jec ted th a t ar g u m e n t, co n c lu d in g th a t: [u ]nd e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, a n d c o n sid e rin g th e fa c t th a t ap p e llan t[-w ife ] did notcompl ai n t o the i nves t i gat i ng of f i cer s of havi ng been c hoked and be at en and thatthe [ vi ct i m - hus band] w as att empt i ng t o com m i tan unnatur al actupon heras al l eged i n hers t at em ent , w e ar e of the opi ni on thatthe tr i al courtw as corr ecti n notgr ant i ng herthe bene f i tof the W eat hers by ru le
. . . . Id
. at345.

### Additiona lly, phot ogra phs t ake n of Mc Quarters on Oct ober 1, 2007, re vea l t

hat 17 

### whil e Mc Quarte rs did have s omebrui se s on he r body, no chokemarks wer e vi sible
. 15 ¶23. T his C ou rtfi nd s no err or by the c i r cui tj udge i n deemi ng the W eathers by ru le i nappl i cabl e underthe ci r cumst ance s , as M cQ uart er s ’ s “conduc tand st at ement s f ol l ow i ng the ki l l i ng” w er e undeni abl y “i ncons i s t entw i th [ her ] ver s i on o f t he event s as r ecount ed at tr i al
. ” G r een , 631 So. 2d at174. M os tnot abl y, atbot h t he cr i m e s cene and i n herf i r s tpol i ce
s t at ement , M cQ uart er s m ade no ment i on of heral t er cat i on w i th Jac ks on or of cut t i ng hi m on the f or earm . I ns t ead, M cQ uart er s t ol d pol i ce of f i cer s thats om eone pos s i bl y had hi tJ acks on on t he h e a d a nd s ug ge s t e d tha tPa l mers ho ul d be c on s i de r e d a s us pe c t . The c i r cui tj udge apt l y s t at ed ats ent enci ng that“ every act i on you t ook l ooked l i ke i tw as t o covers om ethi ng
u p .” M o re o v e r, th e a fo re m e n tio n e d e v id e n c e , alo n g w ith o th e r e v id e n c e p re se n ted , ca lls in to q u e s tio n th e r e a s o n a b le n e s s a n d c re d ib ility o f t h e v e rs io n M c Q u a rt e rs re c o u n te d a t tr ia l. See B lanks , 547 So. 2d at33. Such ot herevi dence i ncl uded the f ol l ow i ng : M cQ uar t er s never al l eged thatJ acks on had choke d herunt i l tr i al ; herpurport ed conce rn forJ acks on f ol l ow i ng 17 the al t er cat i on w as di s put ed by C onner ’ s pol i ce s t at ement s ; s he i ni t i al l y had f ai l ed t o not i ce the abunda ntqua nt i t i es of bl ood i n he rhome, de s pi t e m ul t i pl e w i tnes s es t es t i f yi ng thatt he
sce n e w as a larm ing ; and sh e h ad ac k n o w ledg ed that p o rt ion s o f he r po li ce stat em en ts w ere untrue. C ons i der i ng al l of the af or ement i oned evi dence col l ect i vely, thi s C our tconcl udes thatthe ci r cui tcourtdi d noterri n denyi ng M cQ uart er s ’ s m ot i on f ordi r ect ed ver di cton t he
m ans l aught erchar ge. A s s uch, i tw as “ a j ury i s s ue as t o w hethert o be l i eve ornotbel i eve the def endant ’ s t es t i m ony of

how the s l ayi ng occurr ed, and t o ei therconvi ctora cqui t . ” Id
. at

### 16

3 3
- 3 4 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). See al s o B u rr e ll v. S ta te , 61 3 So
. 2d 11 86 , 11 92 ( qu ot i ng B yrd
v. S ta te , 522 So. 2d 756, 760 ( M i s s . 1988) ) ( “[ t ] he j ury i s the s ol e j udge of the w ei gh tand
cre d ibil ity o f th e e v iden ce . ”). CO NC L US I ON ¶24. B as ed upon t he af or ement i oned anal ys i s , t hi s C our taf f i r m s M cQ uart er s ’ s convi ct i on and the att endi ng s ent ence i m pos ed by the C i r cui tC ourtof A dams C ounty. ¶25. 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 CORRE CT I ONS , W I TH F I F TE EN ( 1 5 ) YEARS TO S ER VE AND FI VE ( 5 ) YE ARS ON FORM AL REPORTI NG POS T- RELEAS E S UPERVI S I ON , W I TH CONDI TI ONS , AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CAR LS ON AND GRAV ES , P . J J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.