Case Name: Demetrius McDONALD, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee
Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2001-05-01
Citations: 784 So. 2d 261
Docket Number: No. 1999-KA-01680-COA
Parties: Demetrius McDONALD, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, P.J., PAYNE, and IRVING, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 784
Pages: 261–270

Head Matter:
Demetrius McDONALD, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
No. 1999-KA-01680-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
May 1, 2001.
Joe N. Tatum, Jackson, Attorney for Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by Scott Stuart, Jackson, Attorney for Appellee.
Before KING, P.J., PAYNE, and IRVING, JJ.

Opinion:
KING, P.J.,
for the Court:
¶ 1. McDonald appeals a jury's verdict of guilty of simple assault on a police officer and the trial court's sentence of five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, payment of court costs and fees before the sixtieth day following his release from custody with five years of supervised probation. Finding that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a lesser-included offense instruction, we reverse and remand for a new trial consistent with the terms of this opinion.
FACTS
¶ 2. On March 1, 1998, Officer Nathaniel Johnson responded to a call of an alleged fight. Upon arriving at the scene, Officer Johnson met Demetrius McDonald who matched the clothing description given to the officer. The officer directed McDonald to come to him. McDonald began to walk away and informed the officer that he had a gun in his pocket that was ready to fire. Johnson reached and felt something hard in McDonald's pocket. Johnson backed away and called for police back-up. McDonald was mumbling as he began to walk away from Officer Johnson. Johnson again instructed McDonald to come towards him and give up his weapon. Three other officers arrived on the scene and continued to request that McDonald stop walking away. Johnson testified that McDonald kept mumbling, "They did me wrong."
¶ 3. Johnson testified that he heard McDonald make threats to him and the other officers. According to Johnson, McDonald stated that he too had a weapon, and that if the officers pulled their firearms, he would pull and shoot his firearm. When this statement was made, McDonald's hands were in his pockets. Johnson testified that McDonald had taken his gun from his pocket just before Officer Otha Brown grabbed him. Johnson stated: "By the time he pulled it [his gun] out, put it down to his side, Officer Brown grabbed him and the gun, he started doing his hand like that back and forth."
¶ 4. Officer Otha Brown also testified about the events of the evening of March 1, 1998. Brown stated that he got out of his car, ran past McDonald and grabbed him. Further Brown testified: "When I grabbed him, he had a gun in his hand. And I kept telling him to give me the gun, give me the gun. And he kept saying, no, they done him wrong . after I kept asking him, . he went on and gave it to me." Brown first saw the gun in McDonald's right hand after having grabbed him. Brown stated that when he first grabbed McDonald putting him in a "bear hug" hold, that they were tussling from side to side with McDonald having the gun in his hand. On cross-examination, Brown was asked:
Q. From the way that you approached Mr. McDonald and grabbed him in a bear hug from behind and he was facing away from the officers, it was not possible for him then to point a weapon at him, correct?
He answered:
A. I'm not going to say it was not possible for him to point a weapon. But when I had him from the back, we was turning from side to side, and the officers were behind me. So he could have been doing that with his hand. I don't know what he was doing with his hand. Q. But you didn't see him point the weapon?
A. No, I didn't see him point.
Next, Officer Benjamin Lee Drake had this to say about the incident:
Officer Johnson had advised us that the defendant had a gun in his right pocket. At that time, we had told Mr. McDonald to take his hand out of his pocket. He turned and started walking away from us. He started saying that we better pull our s— because he was going to pull his and he would kill all of us.... And he kept walking, and we kept telling him, 'Take your hand out of your pocket. Stop.... ' A few seconds later, the gun come out of his pocket. He pulled the gun out. I advised the other officers, he's got the gun out. And about that time, Officer Brown had run around and had gotten Demetrius in like a bear hug. They kind of tussled back and forth. At that time, Demetrius started swinging the weapon with his arm.
Drake indicated that McDonald's action in swinging the gun placed him in fear of his life. Drake stated that McDonald finally relinquished the gun. On cross-examination, Drake testified that McDonald did not directly point the gun at him. Rather, Drake stated the gun "passed" him. Drake conceded that the gun had not "passed" him until Officer Brown had gotten McDonald in a bear hug and that is when McDonald began swinging the gun to and fro. In addition, Drake testified that when McDonald first took the gun out of his pocket, he had it near his side and pointed downward.
¶ 5. A Madison County jury found McDonald guilty of simple assault on a police officer. After the trial court denied his post-trial motions, McDonald perfected this appeal.
ISSUES
¶ 6. On appeal, McDonald raises five issues which he asserts entitle him to have his case either dismissed and he be discharged, or reversed and remanded for a new trial. Having determined that the trial court committed reversible error, we will only address those two issues which are pertinent to our resolution of this case, namely (1) that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a lesser-included offense instruction and (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to recuse himself from the case.
DISCUSSION
1. Lesser-included Offense Instruction
¶ 7. The dispositive issue in this case involves McDonald's assertion that the trial court erred in refusing a lesser-included offense instruction of resisting arrest. McDonald submitted a lesser-inelud-ed instruction of resisting arrest which the trial court refused. He asserts that the trial court erred because there was ample evidence on which the trial court had to base its decision to grant a lesser-included offense instruction and that its refusal to do so was error. McDonald maintains that the evidence only supports the fact that he failed to relinquish a firearm, not that he actually pointed a firearm at any one.
¶8. The State counters that there was no evidentiary basis for the lesser-included instruction offered and that viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, no reasonable juror could have not found him guilty of simple assault on a law enforcement officer. In support of its position, the State points out that officers verified that McDonald did have a gun in his pocket, pulled it out and waived it and pointed it at them generally. Other testimony revealed that McDonald threatened to kill the officers.
¶ 9. A trial court may only grant an offered jury instruction where evidence has been presented which supports the instruction. Perry v. State, 637 So.2d 871, 877 (Miss.1994). The trial court may instruct the jury with reference to lesser-included offenses when warranted by the evidence. Id. Notwithstanding, such instructions may not be given indiscriminately or automatically. Murrell v. State, 655 So.2d 881, 885-6 (Miss.1995). Rather, a trial court should grant a lesser-included offense instruction after it has carefully considered the evidence and consequently is of the opinion that such an instruction is justified by the evidence. Id. In Murrell the supreme court further stated:
[A] lesser included offense instruction should be granted unless the trial judge — and ultimately this Court — can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the accused, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn in favor of the accused from the evidence, that no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense (and conversely not guilty of at least one essential element of the principal charge).
Id. at 886 (quoting Harper v. State, 478 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Miss.1985)).
¶ 10. Here, the trial court refused the following instruction:
If the State fails to prove, in this case, each and every element of the crime of simple assault upon a law enforcement officer beyond a reasonable doubt, you may continue to deliberate whether or not the Defendant is guilty of the crime of resisting arrest. A person is guilty of resisting arrest if by force, violence, or threats, or in any other manner, [he] resists his lawful arrest.
¶ 11. The testimony established that (1) the police officers attempted to arrest McDonald, (2) McDonald walked away from the officers and (3) struggled with Officer Brown. Given this testimony, we find that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis in the record to support an instruction on resisting arrest. Had that instruction been given, it is quite possible that a jury might have found McDonald guilty of resisting arrest rather than simple assault on a police officer. The evidence was such that a jury of reasonable minds could have concluded that McDonald resisted the officers efforts to arrest him. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case for a new trial.
2. Recusal of trial judge
¶ 12. The trial judge in this case was the duly elected district attorney when McDonald was indicted. He acknowledged this matter on the record, disavowed any knowledge of the facts of this case, and offered McDonald the opportunity to proceed to trial on that day, if he waived his right to request recusal. In response to that request, McDonald agreed to waive his rights to have Judge Kitchens recuse himself, and proceeded to trial.
¶ 13. Pursuant to Cannon 3 C(l) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, "[a] judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, ." Under the decision in Frierson v. State, 606 So.2d 604, 606 (Miss.1992), the trial judge should have recused himself on his own motion. He did not recuse himself, but instead accepted McDonald's waiver of objection. This Court finds that waiver to have been effective under Banana v. State, 635 So.2d 851, 852 (Miss.1994). However, this Court believes that the better reasoned approach would have been to recuse and avoid even the appearance of conflict.
¶ 14. Upon remand, this Court suggests that the trial judge, consistent with the mandate of Cannon 3 C of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct, recuse himself from further participation in this matter.
¶ 15. THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION OF SIMPLE ASSAULT ON A POLICE OFFICER AND SENTENCE TO FIVE YEARS REVERSED AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS OPINION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO MADISON COUNTY.
PAYNE, LEE, IRVING, and MYERS JJ., concur. SOUTHWICK, P.J., concurs with separate written opinion joined by McMILLIN, C. J., and THOMAS, J. BRIDGES and CHANDLER, JJ., not participating.