IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2017-KA-00067-COA EARNEST STUCKEY APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/13/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W . ASHLEY HINES COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: W A SHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: ERIN ELIZABETH BRIGGS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: KAYLYN HAVRILLA MCCLINTON DISTRICT ATTORNEY: W I LLIE DEW AYNE RICHARDSON NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/17/2018 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE IRVING, P.J., FAIR AND WESTBROOKS, JJ. WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. The grand j ury of W ashington County indicted Earnest Stuckey f or one count of

firstdegree m urder with a f

irearm enhancem ent. Following a jury trial, Stuckey was convicted of s e c ond-degree m

urder w ith a f

irearm enhancem ent and sentenced to f o rty y ears in the custody of the M ississippi Departm ent o f Corrections (MDOC) and f ive y ears f or the f irearm enhancem ent, to run c onsecutively

. Stuckey f iled a m otion f

or a judgm ent notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), or f

o r a new trial, which t he trial c ourt denied. Stuckey t im ely appeals. Af ter review of

the record, we af

f irm

.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. In late 2 013 o r 2014, Stuckey m et Jennif er T riplett. T he pair b egan dating and m oved in with each other in Greenville, Mississippi. They of ten ref erred to e a ch other as “husband” and “wif e . ” Jennif er’s brother, A rthur Triplett, 1 would stay w ith Stuckey and Jennif er f rom tim e to tim e, and several witnesses testif ied that Stuckey and Arthur had a good r elationship. Sharnika Laws, Arthur’s niece, testif ied that she considered Stuckey and Arthur to be f riends, and Stuckey

also ref e rred to Arthur as his “brother-in-law.” ¶3. In January 2015, Jennif er, Stuckey , Arthur, S harnika, a nd Sharnika’s daughter were visiting out at Jennif

er a nd Stuckey ’s hom e. Jennif er testif ied that som e of the guests were

c o nsum ing b eer and a lcohol. At som e p oint in t he evening, Clif f o rd “Clif f ” Gray stop p e d by the hom e. Stuckey testif ied that Arthur and Clif

f were involved in a heat ed exchange regarding loud m

usic t hat C lif

f was play ing when he entered J ennif er a n d Stuckey ’s hom e. ¶4. Jenni f

e r t e s t i f i ed that shortly af

ter t his exchange, e v ery one lef t except Arthur and Stuckey

. Jennif

er stated that Clif

f ord lef t, because s he called t he police af t e r C l i f f and Arthur’s brief exchange. J e n n i f e r t e stif ied that while she was in her daughter’s room she heard Stuckey and A rthur loudly y elling. Jennif er stated that she lef

t the house and drove to

a gas station because she h ad a headache. A f t e r about t en m inutes, Jennif er’s niece, Sharnika, arrived at the gas station. ¶5. Sharnika testif

ied that af

ter speaking with J e n n i f

e r a t t h e gas station, she drove to Jennif er’s hom e to locate Arthur. Sharnika stated that as s o on as Stuckey o pened the door,

1 A rth u r T rip lett also w as ref

erred to as “U n cle Ju n e” in th e reco rd

. 2she saw a big puddle of bloo d a t t h e f r o nt door and that when she asked Stuckey about Arthur’s whereabouts, Stuckey replied, “I shot him .” Further, Sharnika stated that Stuckey f alsely inf orm ed her that an a m

bulance cam e to pick up Arthur. S he stated that she believed him because Stuckey ’s dem eanor was calm

. However, m om ents later Sharnika and her Aunt Marsha f ound Arthur ly ing i n the street right down f rom Jen n i f

e r a n d Stuckey ’s hom e. Arthur had been shot, and he was b leeding. Sharnika stated that she tried t o s top the bleeding by apply ing pressure to the w ound while M arsha pray ed. Shortly a f ter, the polic e a n d t he

am bulance arrived to care f

o r Arthur; however, Arthur later died f rom his injuries. ¶6. Cordell Daniels, an of f icer with the Greenville Police Departm e n t at the tim e, arrived

to Jennif er and Stuckey ’ s hom e . Of f i c e r A d a ms and O f

f icer Michael Hollingsworth also were at the scene shortly af t er Arthur’s body w a s discovered in the street. Of f i cer Daniels testif i ed t hat Stuckey adm itted to shooting A rthur or “ his brother-in-law” af ter Arthur lunged

at h im twice. However, O f f i c e rs Daniels and Hollingsworth testif ied that there were no scrapes or bruises o n Stuckey

. Of f icer D aniels a lso testif

ied that h e saw a shotgun in Stuckey ’ s bedroom closet. ¶7. Stuckey was arrested and taken to the Greenville Police Departm ent. Stuckey signed

a Miranda waiver and inf

o r m ed Lieutenant Louis W hite, f o rm erly with the Greenville Police Departm ent, that he s hot Arthur b ecause h e “lunged at him twice.” Investigator Tam m ie Hudson also was p resent during Stuckey ’s interrogation. Stuckey stated to Lieutenant W hite and Investigator Hudson that he “shot the [ s***] out of Arthur.” ¶8. Following a trial, Stu c k e y was convicted of second-degree m urder with a f

irearm

3enhancem ent and sentenced to f orty y ears in the custody of the Mississi p p i Departm ent of Corrections (MDOC) a nd f ive y ears f

or the f irea r m e nhancem ent, to run consecutively

. Stuckey f iled a m o tion f

or a J N OV, or f

o r a new trial, which the trial court denied. Stuckey tim ely appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶9. “Our review of

the denial of a m otion f

or d irected v erdict and a

m otion f or a JNOV is u nder the same [ d e novo] standard of review, a challenge t o the legal suf f iciency of the evidence.” See B radford v. State , 102 So. 3d 312, 314-15 (¶6) (Miss. C t

. A p p . 2 0 1 2) (citation om itted). “On appeal, a challenge t o the suf f iciency of the evidence is reviewed on the l ast o ccasion that the trial c ourt ruled on t he s uf f iciency of the evidence.” I d

. at 314 (¶6) ( c iting McClain v. S

tate , 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss.1993)). In this case, the last occas i o n

on which the trial court considered the legal s uf f iciency o f the ev i d e n c e was in ruling on Stuckey ’ s JNOV m otion. ¶10. Further, “[ i ]n r eviewing a challenge to the legal suf f iciency of the e vidence, this Court considers a l l o f the evidence i n the light m ost f avorable t o t he prosecution and accepts all evidence supporting the verdict as true.” Id . at (¶7) (citation om itted). DISCUSSION ¶11. Stuckey asserts that he should have been convicted of m anslaughter under the theory of “im p erf ect self

- def ense.” As a result, he argues that t h e e v i d e n ce was not legally suf f i cient to render a second-degree m urder conviction. ¶12. Stuckey was convicted of second-degree m urder under Mississippi Code Annotated

4section 97-3-19(1)(b) (Rev. 2014). This section states in part:

(1) The killing of a hum an b eing without t he authority o f law by any m eans or in any m anner shall be m

urder in the f

ollowing cases: (b) W hen done in the com m ission of an a ct em inently d angerous to others and evincing a depraved h eart, regardless of hum an lif e, although without any prem e d itated d e s i gn to ef f ect the death of any particular individual, s hall be second-degree m u rder[ .] ¶13. Stuckey

also was convicted under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-37-37(1) (Rev. 2014). This section reads: (1) Except to the e xtent that a greater m inim u m sentence i s otherwise provided by any other provision o f law, any person who uses o r d i s p l a y s a f irearm during the com m ission of any f elony s h a l l , i n addition to the punishm ent provided f

or such f elony , be sentenced to an additional term of i m prisonm ent in t h e c ustody of the Departm ent of C orrections of f ive (5) y ears, which sentence shall not be reduced or suspended. ¶14. T h e M i s s i s s i p pi Suprem e Court has held that “unde r t h e t h e o r y o f i mp e r f e c t self -def e nse, an intentional killing m a y be considered m anslaughter i f done without m alice but under a bona f

ide (but unf

ounded) belief that it was n ecessary to prevent death or great bodily harm .” Brown v. State , 222 So. 3d 3 02, 307 (¶21) (Miss. 2017). T his C ourt has held that “[ t]he chief distinction between m urder a nd m anslaughter is t he p resence of deliberation and m alice in m

urder and its absence in m anslaughter.” Hunter v
. State , 187 So. 3d 674, 677 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). ¶15. The f

ollowing is an excerpt f

rom Stuckey ’s cross-exam ination: Q: Mr. Stuckey , I just have a f e w m ore questions to ask, okay ? You said that Mr. Triplett pushed y ou, right? A: He pushed m e m o re than one tim e .
5Q. He p ushed y o u m ore than one tim e. W ere y ou scared when he pushed y ou? A: No. I haven’t m et a m an I was scare o f

. I m et m ens I d i d n ’t want to m e ss with. Q: So y ou wasn’t scared of him when he pushed y o u? A: No. ¶16. Stuckey ’s t estim ony dem onstrates that he could not have been f o und not guilty

under the theory of “im

perf e ct self -def ense.” Stuckey was not af raid of Arthur and did not believe Arthur would cause serious bodily injury . Theref

ore, this argum ent f

ails. ¶17. F u rtherm ore, the Mississippi Suprem e C ourt stated that under a charge o f s e c o n d

degree m urder, “[ t]o dem onstrate no regard f or a n o ther’s lif

e is the basic r equirem ent of guilt.” Dowda v
. State , 7 76 So. 2d 7 1 4 , 7 1 6 ( ¶ 7 ) ( M i ss. Ct. App. 2000). Stuckey lied to Sharnika when she arrived a t the scene. Several w itnesses testif i ed that S tuckey did not seem

rem orsef ul of his actions. Moreover, Stuckey ’s dem eanor af ter the shooting was described

as calm

. Stuckey testif

i ed that he went to the bedroom to retrieve his shotgun because Arthur kept pushing hi m. H o w e v er, Stuckey exhibited no bruises f rom t heir altercation, and no weapon ever was recovered f rom Arthur’s person. ¶18. The State presented evidence that Arthur was shot and killed with a 2 0-gauge shotgun through Dr. John Davis’s testim ony and photographs of Arthur’s injuries. Dr. John Davis, Deputy Chief Medical Exam iner, testif ied that A r t h u r ’ s m anner of death was r uled as a hom icide f

rom a gunshot w ound to the chest. Further, Chad Suggs, a f orensic scientist with the M ississippi Forensic L ab, testif ied that Stuckey tested positive f or gunshot residue. Mark

6B o a c k l e , a f orensic pathologist specializing in f irearm s, testif

ied that t he p ellets f

ound in Arthur’s chest cam e f

rom a 20-gauge shotgun. ¶19. Stuckey m a intains that he was in a p hy sical a l tercation with the victim and was f earf ul of bodily injury ; h owever, testim ony presented at trial ref

uted that claim . The of

f icers and investigators at the scene of the crim e reported that the house did not look disturbed–aside f rom a b lood trail l eading f rom the inside to the outside of the hom e. Of f i cer Hollingsworth, Lieutenant W hite, a

n d I n v e s t i g ator Hudson t estif ied that Stuckey inf

o rm ed them t hat Stuckey shot Arthur af

ter the victim pushed him t wo or three tim es. Stuckey testif i ed that he believed he was l oading b lank am m unition into the shotgun; however, Investigator Hudson testif ied there were no blanks f

ound while recovering am m unition f rom the hom e. ¶20. Furtherm ore, the jury was instructed on m a n s l a u g h t e r , f i r s t

- d e g r e e m

urder, and second-degree m

urde r. This Court previously has held that “the determ ination of a def endant’s m e ntal culpability is a n issue properly resolved by the jury .” Hunter , 187 So. 3d

at 6 77 ( ¶10) (citing Shumpert v. S tate , 9 3 5 S o . 2d 962, 967 (¶14) (Miss. 2006)). The jury considered all of the e vidence and testim ony pr e sented and d eterm ined that Stuckey acted neither in the heat of

passion, nor com m itted im perf ect self

- def ense. ¶21. View i n g the evidence i n the light m ost f avorable to t he prosecution, w e f ind that a rational juror could have concluded t hat all of t he elem ents of second-degree m

urder were satisf i ed. ¶22. AFFIRMED.
L E E, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.

7