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 0 0 3 9 - S CT ANDRE J

. J ONES
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 10/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. BI L L Y J OE L ANDR UM COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ONES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: LESL I E S. LEE M I CH AEL D UA NE M I TCH ELL BEN J AM I N A LLEN SUB ER 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 : LI SA LY NN BLO UN T DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : AN THO NY J . BU CK LEY NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 05/ 13/ 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 C A R L SO N , P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D P I E R C E , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s appea l pr ocee ds f r om the C i r cuit C our t of J ones C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , w her e a j ury convi ct ed A ndr e J . J ones of the J ul y 17, 2007, m ur derof E r i c R og er s . C i r cui tJ udge B i l l y J oe Landrum s ent ence d J ones t o l i f e i n the cus t ody of

the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof Co rr e c t i o n s . Af

t e rd e n i a l o f

p o s t - tr i a l mo t i o n s , J o n e s a p p e a l e d , r a i s i n g th e f o l l o wi n g t woW e a th e rs b y v. S ta te, 1 4 7 S o . 4 8 1 , 4 8 2 (M is s . 1 9 3 3 ). 1 

### 2 i s s ues : w hetherthe W

eathers by ru le a p p lies , an d w h e th e r th e re is s u ffic ien t ev id e n c e to

1
s u p p o rt th e v e rd ic t. A ft e r r e v ie w , th is C o u rt a ff ir m s th e ru lin g o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt . S TA TE M EN T OF THE F ACT ¶2. O n J ul y 17, 2007, E r i c R oger s w as ki l l ed by a st ab w ound t o the r i ghts i de of hi s neck. T es t i m ony as t o the eve nt s thatl ed up t o the dea th of R oger s i s conf

l i ct i ng. Tes t i m ony of

A ndr e Jone s ¶3. T he def

endant , A ndr e J ones (“ A ndr e”) t es t i f i ed t haton the morni ng of J ul y 17, 2007, V ernon B arnes ( “V ernon”) , E r i c R oger s ( “Eri c”) , Bra ndon J ones ( “B r andon”) , C hr i s J ones ( “C hr i s ”) , and C adar o G avi n (“ C adar o”) cam e by hi s hom e. A ndr e as ked V ernon f ora r i de and goti n the ca r . A ndr e admi t s thathe and Er i c, w ho al s o w as si t t i ng i n the f r onts eatof the ca r , s t art ed ar gui ng. A f t err eac hi ng thei rdes t i nat i on, A ndr e part ed com pany w i th t he other s s om et i m e af

t er10: 00 a . m . A ndr e l at err ej oi ned the gr oup ar ound 7: 30 thateveni ng. A fte r d riv ing aro u n d an d v isi ti n g a sto re, th e g rou p en d ed u p b ac k at V ern o n ’s an d E ri c’s h o u s e . ¶4. A f

t er arr i vi ng at the hous e, A ndr e s t ood next t o the carpor t , dr i nki ng a beer
. H e w as a p p r o a c h e d b y Er i c , who s a i d t h a th e d i d n o ta p p r e c i a t e h o w A n d r e h a d b e e n t a l k i n g t o h i m. E ric the n sw u n g an d k n o c k e d A n d re to th e g ro u n d
. A s A n d re w a s ly in g o n th e g ro u n d , E ric g o t o n to p o f h im a n d h it A n d re ’s h e a d a g a in st th e g ro u n d . A n d re d id n o t k n o w w h e re E ric
w e n t w h e n E ri c g o t o ff

o f h im
.

### 3

¶5 . W h en A n d re fi rst g o t u p from the g rou n d , h e tho u g h t h is h ea d w as b leed ing
. A n d re
w e n t to th e p o rc h a n d a sk e d V e rn o n to let h im in th e h o u se so th a t h e c o u ld c h e c k o n h is head. V ernon decl i ned. T hen, as A ndr e w as s t andi ng on the por ch, E r i c s nat ched the door open, hol di ng the kni f

e i n hi s hand. O nce A ndr e r eal i zed thatE r i c had a kni f e, they bega n “tus s l i ng. ” ¶6. A nd re expl ai ned that he di d not run aw ay beca us e he had f ear ed that E r i c “w as so c l o s e u p o n ” h i m w h e n h e o p e n e d th e d o o r , th a tAn d r e wo u l d n o tb e a b l e t o g e ta wa y . He instead g rab b ed E ri c, an d the y b eg an to w restl e inside the h o u se. T h ey b o th fell to the fl o o r. E r i c di d notgetup af

t erthe f al l , butA ndr e j um ped up a nd gr abbed the kni f e. V ernon t hen came t o the doorand, af t ers eei ng w hathad happe ned, t ol d Cadar o t o go gethi s gun outof th e tru n k . A n d re w a lk e d o u ts id e , p a s t V e rn o n , th e n d o w n th e s tr e e t. ¶7. A ndr e t es t i f

i ed attr i al thatno one w as cl os e enough t o hi m t o s ee w hathad happene d. H e stated tha t V ern o n w as stan d ing ne ar th e ca rpo rt , C ad aro w as stan d ing ov er by th e ca r, and hi s tw o ne phew s w er e s t andi ng outi n the yar d. A ndr e a l s o t es t i f i ed thataf

t erhe l ef tt he hous e and w al ked dow n the s tr eet , he s aw some peopl e w i th w hom he w ant ed t o cat ch a r i de,
so h e thre w d o w n the k n if e. A n d re testi fi ed that h e n ev er w en t t o the k it ch en to g et th e k n if e a n d th a t h e n e v e r h a d p o s s e s s io n o f t h e k n if e u n til th e fi g h t w a s o v e r. Tes t i m ony of

V er non B ar nes ¶ 8 . V e rn o n tes tified th a t A n d re c a lled h im o n th e m o rn in g o f Ju ly 1 7 a n d a sk e d h im to
c o m e b y h is h o u se to p ick h im u p . A fte r V e rn o n p ick e d u p A n d re , E ric g o t in th e fro n t se a t. A ndr e then t ol d E r i c t o geti n the bac k s eat , w hi ch he di d. A s Er i c w as ge t t i ng i n the bac k

### 4

s eat , he s tuck outhi s hand atA ndr e and t ol d A ndr e thathe r es pect ed hi m and thathe w as goi ng t o go ahea d and geti n t he back. T hey st opped ata st or e on t he w ay home. W hi l e at the s t or e, V ernon s t at ed thatther e w as a l otof “r aggi ng goi ng on” betw een A ndr e and Er i c. E ri c d id n o t r e s p o n d to A n d re ’s ta u n ts . ¶ 9 . W h e n th e y g o t to V e rn o n a n d E ric ’s h o u se , so m e tim e a fte r 7 :3 0 p .m ., A n d re w a s still “ra g g ing o n ” E ri c. E ri c w alke d to the roa d to try to g et aw ay from ev ery b o d y , b u t A n d re foll o w ed h im an d co n ti n u ed to rag o n h im
. A n d re the n p u n ch ed E ri c, w h o p u n ch ed A n d re back, knocki ng A ndr e t o t he gr ound. W hi l e A ndr e w as on the gr ound, E r i c gr abbed hi m and to ld h im to le a v e h im a lo n e . E ri c th e n g o t u p a n d w e n t in s id e th e h o u s e . ¶10. T he el ectr i cal pow eratthe hous e w as out , and V ernon c l ai m ed nothi ng coul d be s een i ns i de the hous e. V ernon ha d l ef tthe w i ndow ope n s o thatE r i c w oul d be abl e t o geti n and outof the hous e i f

no one el se w as hom e. H ow ever , V ernon l at eradmi t t ed thatther e w as s om e l i ghtcomi ng i n the hous e f r om a s tr eet l i ght
. E r i c ent er ed the hous e thr ough t he unl ocked f

r ontdoor , l ocked i tbehi nd hi m , butt hen l at erunl ocked i t . A ndr e and V ernon t hen
en tered the h o u se. In the d ark h o u se, E ri c k ep t ask ing A n d re to lea v e h im alon e, w h il e A n d re
w as w al ki ng ar ound hol di ng hi s he ad. T hen A ndr e w al ked pas tV ernon t o go t o the ki t chen. V ernon s aw A ndr e punchi ng Er i c w hen A ndr e ca m e bac k f r om the ki t chen, how ever , V ernon t es t i f i ed thati tw as dark i n the hou se and he did notactual l y s ee A ndr e s t ab Eri c. W hen E r i c’ s body hi tthe f

l oor , V ernon a nd A ndr e r an f r om the hous e and V ernon c al l ed 9 11. V e rn o n d id n o t k n o w w h e re A n d re w e n t a ft e r t h e y fl e d th e in s id e o f t h e h o u s e .

### 5

¶11. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, V ernon t es t i f i ed thatA ndr e had e nt er ed the hous e thr ough the fr on tdo or and thatall o f the m en, w ho w ere several feetbeh i nd A nd re, had enter ed the ho use a f t e rh i m. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d th a tAn d r e h a d l i c k e d th e b l o o d o f f o f th e k n i f e a s h e c a me out s i de. V ernon s ai d thatther e had bee n enough l i ghtfr om t he s tr eetl i ghtt o s ee f ace s and t o getar ound the hous e. Tes t i m ony of

C hr is Jones ¶12. C hri s t est i fi ed that , af t er V ernon pi cked up A ndr e, A ndr e t ol d E r i c t o l et hi m s i tup f r onts o thathe coul d be r eady t o getout . E r i c then goti n the back. C hr i s al s o t es t i f i ed that E r i c t ol d A ndr e thathe “ai n’ tgoi ng t o need t o f i ght ” hi m . H e al s o r emem ber ed Eri c tr yi ng t o s ha ke Andr e ’ s h a nd , b utAndr e r e f us e d t o s ha ke i t . Chr i s s t a t e d tha tthe men wer e not
ar gui ng i n the car
. W hen t hey r eac hed V ernon’ s hous e, E r i c gotoutand w entt o the s tr eet to sm o k e a c ig a re tte. A n d re f o llo w e d h im , sa id so m e th in g to h im , an d th e y b e g a n to fig h t. E r i c goton top of

A ndr e, butA ndr e punched hi m and made E r i c bl eed. E r i c gotup, w ent i nto the h o u se, an d locked the d oo r. A nd re w anted a t ow el , so he w ent i n to the h ou se thr ough the w i ndow
. A ndr e then unl ocked the doorand everyone w enti n, butC hr i s s t ayed out s i de. W hi l e out s i de, C hr i s hear d f ai ntbum pi ng comi ng f r om the hous e, and then
e v e ry o n e ra n o u t. ¶13. T he m en al l w entba ck and l ooked i ns i de the hous e. T her e, they s aw Er i c l yi ng i n a p o o l o f h is o w n b lo o d
. A fte r th e y ra n o u t o f th e h o u se , C a d a ro , A n d re , V e rn o n , an d C h ris j um ped i nt o the ca r . C hr i s s ai d he di d notre al l y re m emberm uch af t ert hat , cl ai m i ng he w as i n s hock.

### 6

Tes t i m ony of

O f f i cerMi chael

R eave s ¶ 1 4 . In a d d iti o n to th e th re e e y e w itn e ss e s c a lled to tes tify , th e S tate a lso c a lled o th e rs to t es t i f y as t o the f

or ens i c evi dence
. M i chae l R eave s , an i nves t i gat orw i th the Laur el Pol i ce D epart m ent , w as cal l ed t o the s t and. A tthe cr i m e s cene , he had obs erved thatE r i c’ s body
w as l ocat ed “j us tatthe f eetof the f r ontdoor
. ” H i s body w as l yi ng f ace - dow n w i th hi s hands by hi s s i des in a lar ge pool of bl ood. R eave s al s o not i ced w hathe bel i eved t o be art er i al bl ood s pr ay al ong the w al l s nearthe body. H e t es t i f i ed thatas he w as exami ni ng the body, he w as unabl e t o f

i nd any otherw ounds as i de f r om the f at al s t ab w ound. ¶1 5. D ur i ng h i s t e s t i mony, Rea ve s s t a t e d tha tthe b l oo d s pa t t er s on t he doorw oul d be
co n sist e n t w ith the d o o r be ing o p en at th e ti m e o f th e stab b ing
. B loo d d rop let s also w ere fo u n d n e a r th e e n tra n c e to th e h a llw a y th a t led to th e b e d ro o m s. T h e p o lice w e re a b le to
rec o v er the k n if

e fro m “a rou n d the c o rne r. ” T h e tw elve -i n ch , g en era l- p u rpo se k it ch en k n if e
w as f ound w i th l i t t l e t o no bl ood on i t . H ow ever , s om e s pot s w er e l ocat ed on the s harp edge of the kni f e. R eave s al s o t es t i f

i ed thatA ndr e’s clot hing a nd the kni f e w er e s entt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Lab f orexami nat i on. T es tr es ul t s s how ed thatE r i c’ s bl ood w as on t he kni f e; how ever , A ndr e’ s D N A w as noton the kni f e. N o t es t i ng w as done on the cl ot hi ng s e n t to th e c ri m e la b
. ¶16. R eave s t es t i f

i ed on cr os s exami nat i on t hatt her e w as enough l i ghti n the hous e t o get
ar ound the hous e, and thath e h ad t o us e hi s f l as hl i ghtonl y atcert ai n poi nt s . H e di d, how ever , have t o br i ng i n port abl e l i ght i ng t o f i ni s h the i nves t i gat i on. H e al s o admi t t ed that no f i ngerpr i ntt es t i ng w as done on the bl ock of kni ves orthe kni f

e thatw as us ed t o s t ab Eri c.

### 7

Tes t i m ony of

D r . St eve n H

ayne ¶ 1 7 . D r. S tev e n H a y n e , a m e d ica l e x a m in e r a t th e tim e o f E ric ’s d e a th , a lso w a s c a lled to tes tify . H e tes tified th a t th e sta b w o u n d cro ss e d E ric ’s b o d y slig h tly d o w n w a rd , g o in g in to th e ch e st w a ll, an d h a d a d e p th o f fiv e inc h e s. T h e k n ife w e n t th ro u g h th e a rc h o f th e a o rta
a s w e ll a s th e u p p e r l o b e o f t h e ri g h t lu n g . T h e s ta b w o u n d w a s fa ta l. ¶1 8 . T h e jury fou n d A n d re g u il ty of m u rde r, an d he w as se n tenc ed to li fe in p ri so n . A n d re a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e to th is C o u rt a n d ra ise s tw o iss u e s o n a p p e a l. ¶ 1 9 . F irst, A n d re a rg u e s h e sh o u ld b e a c q u itt e d a s a m a tte r o f la w p u rsu a n t to th e ru le f ound i n W

e a th e rs b y v. S ta te , 147 So. 481, 482 ( M i s s . 1933) , a nd i t s pr ogeny, be caus e he
w as the on l y person presentw hen E ri c w as st abb ed. Jon es cl ai m s the Stat e’s on l y w i tness
w ho w as pres ent duri ng the st abb i ng cou l d n ot s ee w hat w as happ ening du e t o the darkness i ns i de the hous e. A ndr e al s o cont ends thathi s ver s i on of the eve nt s thatni ghtw as not subst anti al l y co ntr adict ed b y the evidence, and theref ore he w as ent i t l ed to an acq uitt al as a m a tte r o f l a w . ¶ 2 0 . S e c o n d , A n d re arg u e s th a t th e w e ig h t o f th e S tate ’s e v id e n c e fa ils to su p p o rt a g u ilty v erd ictfor m u rde r. T h ere fore , the v erd ictsh o u ld b e rev erse d o r red u ce d to m an slau g h ter,
e v e n w h e n v iew in g th e S tate ’s e v id e n c e in th e b e st p o ss ib le lig h t. A N A L Y S IS I . T he W

eat hers by R u le ¶21. A ndr e cont ends thathe s houl d ha ve bee n acqui t t ed as a mat t erof l aw pur s uantt o the W eat hers by rul e. I n W

eat hers by , the C o u rt h e ld :

### 8

[W ]he re th e d e fe n d a n t o r th e d e fe n d a n t’s w itn e ss e s a re th e o n ly e y e w itn e ss e s to the h om i ci de, theirversi on , i f r ea so n ab le, m ustbe acc epted as true, un l ess s ubs t ant i al l y contr adi ct ed i n m at eri al part i cul ar s by a cr edi bl e w i tnes s or w i tnes s es f

orthe s t at e, orby phys i cal fa ct s orby the f act s of comm on know l edge. W e a th e rs b y v. S ta te , 1 6 5 M iss. 2 0 7 , 2 0 9 , 1 4 7 S o . 4 8 1 , 4 8 2 (19 3 3 ). ¶22. A s s t at ed i n J

o h n so n v. S ta te , 9 8 7 S o . 2 d 4 2 0 , 4 2 5 (M iss
. 2 0 0 8 ), th is C o u rt h a s h e ld thatther e ar e s om e ci r cumst ance s w her e, even though the def endantand hi s w i tnes s ar e the onl y eyew i tnes s es t o the homi ci de, the W e at hers by ru le w o u ld n o t app ly. T h e C o u rt
narr ow ed the appl i cat i on of the W eat hers by ru le b y s ta tin g th a t itw o u ld b e u n a v a ilab le

“ w h e re the d e fe n d a n t’s v e rsio n is pa ten tly u n re a so n a b le, o r co n tra d icte d b y p h y sic a l f a c ts

. . . w here t he ac cus ed, f ol l ow i ng the s l ayi ng, gi ves conf l i ct i ng ver s i ons of

how the ki l l i ng t ook pl ace ; orhe i ni t i al l y deni es the ac t . ” Johnson , 987 So. 2d at425 ( ci t i ng B la n ks v . S ta te , 547 So. 2d 29, 33- 34 ( M i s s . 1989)
. I n s i tuat i ons w her e the rul e b ecom es i nappl i cabl e, t he
ca se th en b ec o m es a n issue for the jury
. T h e jury is to d e term ine if th e d efe n d an t’ s tes tim o n y is th e m o re c re d ib le v e rsio n o f e v e n ts a n d to d e c id e e ith e r to c o n v ict o r to a c q u it. Johnson , 987 So. 2d at425 ( ci t i ng B la n ks v . S ta te , 5 4 7 S o . 2 d 2 9 , 3 3 -34 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )). ¶ 2 3 . A n d re c o n ten d s th a t h is v e rsio n o f th e e v e n ts fro m th e n ig h t in q u e stio n is re a so n a b le and i s notm at er i al l y contr adi ct ed by t he otherevi dence
. A r evi ew of the r ecor d i ndi cat es otherw i se. W hil e t he tes t i m on y of V ernon an d C hri s i s contr adict ory i n som e res pects , i tal so m a ter ially c o n tra d icts A n d re ’s te stim o n y . W h ile A n d re te stifie d th a t E ric a p p ro a c h e d h im
w hen the men arr i ved atV ernon’ s hous e, both V ernon and C hr i s t es t i f i ed thatE r i c had
w al ked aw ay f

r om A ndr e, butt hen A ndr e had f ol l ow ed hi m , and a fi ghthad ensue d. V ernon

### 9

an d C h ri s also test if

ied th at E ri c w as th e firstp erso n to en ter th e h o u se, an d tha t A n d re su b seq u en tl y fo ll o w ed h im
. H o w ev er, A n d re testi fi ed tha t i t w as E ri c w h o o p en ed the d o o r. V ernon t es t i f

i ed that , once i ns i de the hous e, A ndr e w entt o t he ki t chen, gr abbed the kni f e, and att acke d E ri c w hen he r eturned t o the l i vi ng r oom . A ndr e, on the otherhand, t es t i f i ed thatw hen Eri c opene d the door , he had a kni f e i n hand, and t he fi gh ten s ued. C l ear l y, t he t es t i m ony thatV ernon a nd Chri s pr ovi ded w as i n di r ectcontr adi ct i on t o the t es t i m ony of t he d e fe n d a n t. ¶24. Fur ther , the phys i cal evi dence pr ovi ded by the St at e al s o m at er i al l y contr adi ct ed the tes tim o n y o f th e d e fe n d a n t. A n d re tes tified th a t E ric h a d o p e n e d th e d o o r w ith a k n ife in hand and the f

at al al t er cat i on had begun ther e. H ow ever , O f f i cerR eave s t es t i f

i ed thatbl ood d ro p lets w e re fo u n d n e a r th e d o o rw a y lea d in g to th e b e d ro o m s. T h is is c o n sis ten t w ith V ernon’ s t es t i m ony thatE ri c an d A ndre st art ed t o f i ghtaf t erboth w er e i ns i de the hous e. O f f i cerR eave s furthert es t i f i ed thatther e w as enough l i ghti n the hous e t o m aneuve rar ound the hous e ea s i l y, and thatthe bl ock of k nives e as i l y coul d be s een a s one w al ked i nt o t he k itc h e n . ¶25. B eca us e A ndr e’ s t es t i m ony w as s ubs t ant i al l y contr adi ct ed by the t est i m ony of the St at e’ s w i tnes s es and physi cal evi dence , the W eat hers by rul e i s i nappl i cabl e. T he cas e w as a mat t erf

orthe j ury t o deci de. T he j ury ac cept ed the St at e’ s ver s i on of event s and f

ound A n d re J o n e s g u ilty o f m u rd e r. T h e re fo re , th is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t. I I . T he M urder V erdi ct w as not Sup port ed by t he E vi dence.

### 10

¶26. A ndr e ar gues that the w ei ght of the evi dence pr es ent ed does not s uppor t a f i ndi ng of
m ur der
. H e ar gues thatthe evi dence s uppor t s a f i ndi ng thathe ac t ed i n s el f
- def ens e and that he ha d n o d e l i be r a t e de s i gn t o mur de rEr i c . H e a r gu e s a l t e rna t i ve l y tha tthe e vi dence pr es ent ed meet s the el em ent s of m ans l aught erand s houl d be cons i der ed a he at - of
- pas s i on cr i m e. H ow ever , the St at e cont ends thatthe evi dence pr es ent ed i s s uf f i ci entt o s uppor tthe
e le m e n ts o f m u rd e r. ¶27. T hi s C our t has m ade i t cl ear that a convi ct i on w i l l be r ever s ed onl y i f “t o al l ow [ the convi ct i on] t o s t and w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 844 ( M i s s . 2005)
. F urt her, thi s C our thas s ai d, “i n cons i der i ng w hetherornotthe verdi ctof a j ury w as contr ary t o the ove rw helm i ng w ei gh tof the ev i den ce, this C ou rtm ust
a c c e p t as tru e a ll th e e v id e n c e w h ich su p p o rts th e S tate ’s p o sitio n , tog e th e r w ith a ll i nf er ence s r eas onabl y f

l ow i ng t her ef

r om , i n the l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e t o the St at e’ s theory of the ca s e. ” B ritt v. S ta te , 520 So. 2d 1377, 1379 ( M i s s . 1988) ( ci t i ng H a y m o n d v. S ta te , 478 So. 2d 297, 300 ( M i s s . 1985) )
. In the i ns t antcas e, t he St at e has prove d t hatA ndr e di d not
a c t in se lf-d e fe n se , n o r d id h e lac k d e lib e ra te d e sig n . T h e S tate a lso p ro v e d th a t A n d re d id notacti n the hea tof

pas s i on a nd thatthe evi dence w as s uf f i ci entt o meetal l the el ement s of
m ur der
. T he evi dence s how ed thatA ndr e w as the aggr es s orand i ns t i gat orthr oughoutt he day. E vi dence i ndi cat ed t hatt her e w as no pr ovocat i on fr om E r i c, and A ndr e had i nt entthe
m om enthe engage d Er i c i n the f i ghtw i th the kni f

e. T her ef or e, the ver di ctof

the j ury i s not
s o contr ary t o the evi dence thatal l ow i ng i tt o st and w oul d be an unc ons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce.

### 11

T he ver di cti s s uppor t ed by the w ei ghtof the evi dence , a nd ther ef or e, thi s as s i gnm entof

err or is w ith o u t m e ri t. A
. Self

-D ef ense ¶2 8. I n or de rf

ora ho mi c i de t o b e j us t i f i e d a s s e l f

- de f e ns e , the a c t or ’ s a pp r ehens i on of d a n g e r m u s t a p p e a r o b

je c tiv e ly re a l to a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n o f a v e ra g e p ru d e n c e . H ar t v. State, 637 So. 2d 1329, 1339 ( M i s s . 1994)
. T hi s C our t , i n W a de v. S ta te , 748 So. 2d 771, 775 ( M i ss . 1999) , hel d thatthe i s s ue of j us t i f i abl e s el f
- def ens e pr es ent s a ques t i on of t he
w ei ght and cr edi bi l i ty of the evi dence , r atherthan s uf f i ci ency, and i s t o be det erm i ned by jury
. T h is C o u rtfu rth e r stated that “a n y fac tual d ispu tes are p rop erly res o lved b y the ju ry and do notm andat e a ne w tr i al
. ” McN e a l v. S ta te , 6 1 7 S o . 2 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 9 (M is s . 1 9 9 3 ). ¶2 9 . A n d re arg u es th at th e e v iden ce d em o n str ates a ca se o f j u sti fi ab le self- d efe n se. A n d re c o n ten d s th a t, t a k in g th e S tate ’s c a s e in th e b e st p o ss ib le lig h t, no re a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld
c o n v ict A n d re o f m u rd e r. T h e S tate a rg u e s th a t th e ev id e n c e p re se n ted sh o w s th a t th e d e a th
o f E ri c w a s n o t in s e lf

-d e fe n s e a n d s h o u ld b e c o n s id e re d m u rd e r. ¶30. A ndr e t es t i f

i ed at tr i al that the f

at al f i ghtha d s t art ed w hen E r i c had opened the door t o the ho use w i th kn i fe i n han d. R at her than run aw ay, A nd re chose t o en gag e E ri c, becau se h e fe ltthat E ri c w as too close for him t o run . H e a lso testi fi ed that in the irstru g g le, A n d re and Eri c f

el l , and Eri c di d notgetup. T he St at e pr es ent ed evi dence thati tw as A ndr e w ho gr abbed the kni f

e once he ent er ed the hous e, and thatA ndr e w as the aggr es s ori n the att ack. T he j ury w as pr es ent ed w i th both ver s i ons of the eve nt s . T he j ury r es ol ved the f actual di s put es and f

ound A ndr e gui l ty of

m ur der
. T he j ury’ s pr operr es olut i on o f the f actual

### 12

d isp u tes in th e c a se d o e s n o t m a n d a te a n e w trial. T h e re fo re , this a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is
w ith o u t m e ri t.

B
. D el i ber at e D es ign ¶ 3 1 . A n d re als o arg u e s th a t th e S tate faile d to e sta b lish su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to d e m o n stra te del i ber at e des i gn t o c om m i tmurde r , a nd ther ef or e, the theory of

“ i m perf ect s el f
- def ens e”
s houl d be appl i ed t o the ca s e, as s etouti n W a de v. S ta te , 748 S o. 2d 771, 775 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng L a n ierv. S ta te , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 9 3 , 9 7 (M iss .1 9 9 6 )). T h e S tate c o n ten d s th a t th e e lem e n ts
o f m u rd e r w e re p ro v e d b y th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d a n d th e c o n v ic tio n o f m u rd e r i s p ro p e r. ¶ 3 2 . T o p ro v e m u rd e r, th e S tate m u st sh o w th a t a p e rso n w a s k ill e d w ith o u t th e a u th o rity of l aw , a nd the ki l l i ng w as done w i th the del i ber at e des i gn t o ef f ectthe dea th of

the per s on ki l l ed orof

s om e otherper s on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97-3- 19( 1) ( a) ( R ev. 2006)
. T he C our thas def i ned del i ber at e des i gn, s t at i ng that“‘ del i ber at e’ al w ays i ndi cat es ful l aw ar enes s of w hat
on e is d oing, and gen eral l y im pli es car eful and un hu rr i ed co nsi derat i on of the co nsequ ences.

‘ D es i gn’ m eans t o cal cul at e, pl an, cont emp l at e . . . del i ber at e des i gn t o ki l l a per s on m ay be fo rm e d v e ry q u ic k ly , a n d p e rh a p s o n ly m o m e n ts b e fo re th e a c t o f c o n s u m m a tin g th e in te n t.” G o ss e tt v. S ta te , 660 So. 2d 1285, 1293 ( M i s s . 19 95 ) ( qu oti ng W in dh a m v. S ta te , 520 So. 2d 123, 127 ( M i s s . 1987))
. T hi s C our tf ur thercl ar i f

i ed the def

i ni t i on of del i ber at e des i gn by st at i ng , “D el i berat e d esi gn , as a m at t er of l aw , m ay be i nferred t hroug h the i ntent i on al use of any i ns trum entw hi ch bas ed on i t s m annerof us e, i s cal cul at ed t o produc e death ors er i ous bodi l y i nj ury. ” W

ilso n v. S ta te , 936 So. 2d 357, 364 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng J o n e s v . S ta te , 710 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 )); Fa irc h ild v. S ta te , 4 5 9 S o . 2 d 7 9 3 , 8 0 2 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ))
.

### 13

¶33. A ndr e r el i es on K irk la n d v. S ta te , 5 7 3 S o . 2 d 6 8 1 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ) i n s u p p o rt o f h is
ar gu m entthatther e w as a l ack of del i ber at e des i gn. T he Ki rkl and C our tr ever s ed a
m ans l aught erconvi ct i on and or der ed a ne w tr i al o n t he f i ndi ng thatthe w ei ghtof t he evi dence di d nots uppor tthe mansl aught erver di ct . I n Ki rkl and , the vi ct i m had bee n the
a g g re s s o r t h ro u g h o u t th e d a y a n d w a s a rm e d a t th e tim e o f t h e fi g h t. I d. at682. T he tw o m en al s o had a hi s t ory of

vi ol ence betw een them, i ncl udi ng a t i m e w hen the vi ct i m had r amm ed th e d e fe n d a n t’s c a r in a n a ttem p t to p u sh h im in to o n c o m in g tra ffic , th e n la ter h a d b e a ten h im
u p . I d. a t682. O n the day he di ed, the vi ct i m f ol l ow ed K i r kl and, a nd a f i ghtens ued ata s t op s ig n . I d. G i ven the men’ s vi ol enthi s t ory and the f actthatthe vict i m had f ol l ow ed the def endantand w as arm ed, the C our tw as convi nced thatthe s hoot i ng coul d be s een a s ju s tif ie d a n d re m a n d e d th e m a tte r f o r a n e w tr ia l. ¶34 . In the inst ant cas e, A nd re w as the agg res sor throug ho ut the day
. A nd re and E ri c al so had n o pri or hi s t ory of

vi ol ence . I ti s A ndr e’ s cont ent i on thatE r i c had the kni f e f i r s tand thatdur i ng the cour s e of the f i ght , the tw o m en fel l , and t he kni f e pene tr at ed Eri c’ s body. U nl i ke the f

act s pr es ent ed i n Ki rkl

and , A n d re h a d a c h a n c e to ru n a w a y a n d a v o id th e fig h t. In s te a d , h e fo llo w e d E ri c in to th e h o u s e a n d e n g a g e d h im in a k n if e fi g h t. ¶ 3 5 . It is a ls o im p o rt a n t to n o te th a t A n d re ’s “ tu s s lin g ” w ith a k n if e d e m o n stra tes d e lib e ra te i nt ent . T he kni f

e w as a deadl y w eapon, and A ndr e knew t he dange r s of f i ght i ng w i th s uch
a w e a p o n a n d sh o u ld h a v e b e e n a w a re th a t u se o f th e k n if e c o u ld re su lt i n se rio u s b o d ily in ju ry o r d e a th
. W

ilso n v. S ta te , 710 So. 2d 357, 364 ( ci t i ng J o n e s v . S ta te , 710 So. 2d 870,

### 14

8 7 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); Fa irc h ild v. S ta te , 4 5 9 S o . 2 d 7 9 3 , 8 0 2 ( M iss . 1 9 8 4 )). T h e re fo re , this
a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t.

C
. Heat

of P as s i on ¶3 6 . A n d re c laim s th a t h e a c ted “in th e h ea t of p assio n ” w h en E ri c d ied. T h is C o u rt def i ned “he atof

pas s i on” i n Mu llin s v . S ta te a s; A sta te o f v io len t an d u n c o n tro llab le r a g e e n g e n d e re d b y a b lo w o r c e rta in otherpr ovocat i on gi ven, w hi ch w i l l r educe a homi ci de f r om a gr ade of

m ur der t o thato f m ansl aught er . Pas s i on orangers uddenl y ar ous ed atthe t i m e by s om e i m m edi at e and r eas onabl e pr ovocat i on, by w or ds oract s of one atthe ti m e. T h e term inclu d es a n em o ti o n al st ate o f m in d c h ara cterized b y an g er, ra g e , h a tr e d , fu ri o u s re s e n tm e n t o r t e rr o r. Mu llin s v . S ta te , 4 9 3 S o . 2 d 9 7 1 , 9 7 4 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ). O n e o f th e p rim a ry e lem e n ts o f a h e a tof
- pas s i on cr i m e i s “i m m edi at e and r eas onabl e pr ovocat i on, by w or ds or ac t s of one att he t i m e. ” Thi s C our thas hel d that“i ti s es s ent i al thatthe exc i t ed and ang ry condi t i on of t he p a r ty c o mm i t t i n g th e a c twh i c h wo u l d e n t i t l e h i m t o th e mi l d e rc o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e l a w, s houl d be s up e r i nd uc e d b y s ome i ns ul t , pr ov oc a t i on , ori nj ury, w hi c h woul d n a tur a l l y a nd i ns t ant l y pr oduce, i n the mi nds of or di nar i l y cons t i tut ed men, t he hi ghes tdegr ee of
exas per at i on. ” P re sto n v. S ta te , 25 M i s s . 383, 387 ( 1853)
. T hi s C our tf ur therheld that “t here m ustno ton l y b e passi on an d ang er t o reduce a cri m e t o m ansl aug hter , bu tthere m ust be s uch ci r cumst ance s as w oul d i ndi cat e thata nor m al m i nd w oul d be r ous ed t o the ext ent th a t th e re a s o n is o v e rt h ro w n a n d th a t p a s s io n u s u rp s th e m in d d e s tr o y in g ju d g m e n t.” W in dh a m v. S ta te , 520 So. 2d 123, 127 ( quot i ng Ca lvin v. S ta te , 1 6 8 S o . 7 5 (19 3 6 )).

### 15

¶37. I n s uppor tof

hi s ar gum entthatE ri c w as sl ai n i n t he heatof pas s i on, A ndr e r el i es heavi l y on W

a de v. S ta te, 7 4 8 S o . 2 d 7 7 1 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ). H o w e v e r, W ade a lso is di s t i ngui s habl e f

r om thi s cas e. I n W

ade , i tw as the vi ct i m w ho w as the aggr es s or . T he vict i m , S i m ps on, had a f our - yearhi s t ory of

abus i ng W ade. O n the ni ghti n ques t i on, S im p so n ins tig a ted the alte rc a tio n b y se v e re ly b e a tin g W a d e ’s h e a d ag a in st tab le s sh o rtly b e fo re th e s h o o tin g . ¶ 3 8 . In th is c a se , th e re is e v id e n c e th a t A n d re “ w a s o n ” E ric a ll d a y . V e rn o n a n d C h ris t es t i fi ed t hat A ndr e had f or ced Er i c t o s i ti n the bac k s eatof the ca rand thatA ndr e had fo llo w e d E ric w h e n E ric h a d tried to w a lk a w a y . V e rn o n a n d C h ris a lso tes tified th a t E ric h ad tri ed to sh ak e A n d re’s h an d b u t A n d re h ad refu sed
. T h is co n ti n u ed ag g ression tow ard E ric , w ith n o p rio r h isto ry o f c o n flict, is e n o u g h to d e m o n stra te m a lice a n d d istin g u ish th is
c a s e f r o m W ade . ¶3 9. I n t he cur r entcas e , the r e w a s no i mm e di a t e orr e a s on a bl e pr ov oc a t i on . Evi de nc e s how s thatA ndr e w as the aggr es s orthr oughoutthe da y. H e pr ovoked f i ght s w i th E r i c. A ndr e cont ends thatther e w as no cool i ng- of f per i od betw een the f

i ghtout s i de and w hen he
e n t e r e d th e h o u s e . An d r e f u r th e rc o n t e n d s th a tth e r e wa s s o me p r o v o c a t i o n b y th e v i c t i m, an d that h e re ac ted w ith m o re-than -reaso n ab le force , res u lti n g in E ri c’s d ea th. H o w ev er, ther e w as no evi dence of pr ovocat i on f r om E r i c. A ndr e f

ol l ow ed Eri c t o the s tr eet , t hey fou g h t, an d A n d re th en fo ll o w ed h im to the h o u se. T h e S tat e p rese n ted e v iden ce that A n d re g ra b b e d the k n ife first, w ith o u t pr o v o c a tio n fro m E ric
. N e ith e r v e rsio n o f th e sto ry su p p o rts
a c l a i m of

h e a t - of
- pa s s i on man s l a ug ht e r . Thi s i s n ota c i r c ums t a nc e i n w hi ch pas s i on

### 16

us urped t he mi nd a nd de s tr oy e d j ud gmen t . A nd r e w a s f ul l y a w a r e of

w ha the w a s do i ng
w hen he e ngag ed i n a kni f e f i ghtw i th E r i c. T her ef

or e, thi s as s i gnm entof

err ori s w i thout
m e ri t. III. T h e E v ide n ce w a s In su ffi cien t to S u p p o rt th e V er d ict. ¶40. A ndr e J ones a l s o m ent i ons , i n pas s i ng, thatthe evi dence pr es ent ed by the St at e w as i ns uf f i ci entt o s uppor tthe convi ct i on. The c r i t i cal i nqui ry w hen cons i der i ng the s uf f i ci ency of the evi dence i s w het her , af t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o t he p r o s e c u t i o n , a n y r a t i o n a l tr i e ro f f a c tc o u l d h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o f th e c r i me b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Mo rr is v . S ta te , 927 So. 2d 744, 748 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng B u sh
v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 843 ( M i ss. 2 00 5))
. I n the i ns t antcas e, ther e w as t es t i m ony that A n d re w a s th e first p e rso n to g ra b th e k n ife a n d th a t h e a ttac k e d E ric
. T h e c a se lar g e ly
con si st ed o f the S t at e’s w i tnesses’ t esti m o n y a gainstA nd re’ s t est i m on y. T his present s a f actual di s put e t o be r es ol ved by a j ury. W e ca nnotconcl ude thatany r at i onal tr i erof f act coul d nothave f

ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , w hen the evi dence i s vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o t he St at e. A ccor di ngl y, thi s as s i gnm ent
o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t. CO NC L US I ON ¶4 1. T he St at e pr es ent ed w i t nes s t es t i m ony and p hy s i c a l e vi de nc e tha t cont r adi ct ed A ndr e’ s t es t i m ony, ther eby r ender i ng the W eat hers by rul e i nappl i cabl e. T he St at e pr es ent ed evi dence thatA ndr e di d notacti n s el f def ens e, nordi d he l ack de l i ber at e des i gn. T hr ough

### 17

the e v iden ce p rese n ted , th e S tat e w as a b le t o p rov e A n d re Jo n es’s a cti o n in E ri c R o g ers’s death f i tevery el ementof

m ur der
. T he j udgm entof the tr i al courti s af

f i r m ed. ¶ 4 2 . CONVI CT I ON OF M URDE R AND S EN TE NCE OF LI F E I M P RI S ONM EN T I N TH E C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSISSIPPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, W I T H C O N D I T I O N S , A F F I R M E D . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, K IT C H E N S A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. , C O N C U R . G R A V E S , P . J. , C O N C U R S IN RE S UL T ONL Y.