Case Name: STATE of Mississippi v. Tommy Dean SHAW
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2004-08-12
Citations: 880 So. 2d 296
Docket Number: No. 2001-KA-01854-SCT
Parties: STATE of Mississippi v. Tommy Dean SHAW.
Judges: SMITH, C.J., DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. WALLER, P.J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. CARLSON, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY COBB, P.J. DIAZ AND GRAVES, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 880
Pages: 296–310

Head Matter:
STATE of Mississippi v. Tommy Dean SHAW.
No. 2001-KA-01854-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Aug. 12, 2004.
Christopher Louis Schmidt, Christian, Cono A. Caranna, Biloxi, Wayne Snuggs, Jackson, attorneys for appellant.
Tadd Parsons, Jack Parsons, Wiggins, attorneys for appellee.

Opinion:
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
EASLEY, Justice,
for the Court.
¶ 1. The motion for rehearing is granted. The original opinions are withdrawn, and these opinions are substituted therefor.
¶ 2. Relying on Harris v. State, 723 So.2d 546 (Miss.1997), the Circuit Court of Stone County granted a directed verdict for Tommy Dean Shaw on the indicted charge of murder and would not allow the jury to consider whether Shaw was guilty of the unindicted crime of manslaughter. The State of Mississippi appeals the entry of the directed verdict. The State argues that if the State fails to make out a prima facie case on the charge of murder, the trial judge should have the discretion to enter a "limited" directed verdict as to the murder charge and to submit the case to the jury on the unindicted offense of manslaughter.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
¶3. Tommy Dean Shaw ("Shaw") was indicted by the Grand Jury of Stone Coun ty on November 22, 2000, for the crime of murder in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19(l)(a) (1972). Following a 2001 mistrial in Stone County, trial began in Stone County on November 5, 2001. After a three-day trial, the court granted a directed verdict of acquittal on the indicted charge of murder and would not allow the jury to consider whether Shaw was guilty of the unindicted crime of manslaughter. Relying on Harris v. State, 723 So.2d 546 (Miss.1997), the trial judge ruled that the State had failed to make a prima facie case on the indicted murder charge; therefore, the trial court determined that it was obligated to grant a directed verdict of acquittal on the charge of murder and not permitted to submit the case to the jury on manslaughter, a lesser unindicted offense.
¶ 4. Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-35 — 103(b) (Rev.2000), which provides in relevant part that:
The state or any municipal corporation may prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court in a criminal cause in the following cases:
(b) From a judgment actually acquitting the defendant where a question of law has been decided adversely to the state or municipality; but in such case the appeal shall not subject the defendant to further prosecution, nor shall the judgment of acquittal be reversed, but the Supreme Court shall nevertheless decide the question of law presented.
The State seeks redress only as to a pure question of law and not for the purpose of further prosecution of Shaw. The State does not contest the trial judge's rulings as to the "facts" but only contends that this Court's ruling in Hams is distinguishable from the facts in the case at hand.
DISCUSSION
¶ 5. Since the issue presented is a question of law, we conduct de novo review. Ostrander v. State, 803 So.2d 1172, 1174 (Miss.2002) (citing Dep't of Human Servs. v. Gaddis, 730 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Miss.1998)).
¶ 6. The State argues that the trial court's ruling relying on Harris is contrary to the modern trend of allowing trial courts to submit a lesser charge to the jury without the necessity of a separate count in the indictment, if the court directs a verdict on the charge in the indictment. The State argues that a defendant under indictment for murder is sufficiently on notice that the subsequent submission of the charge of manslaughter, for which the defendant is not under indictment, does not cause prejudice. Further, the State argues that submitting to the jury a lesser unindicted crime is not contrary to the well-established precedent of allowing trial judges to submit uncharged lesser-included offenses to the jury upon a limited directed verdict acquitting the defendant of the superior offense.
¶ 7. The State alleges that manslaughter is a lesser-included offense to murder; and therefore, under current precedent, it should have been permitted to proceed. The State claims the present facts are very different from those in Harris; therefore, Harris should not be controlling. Finally, the State argues that since this Court has authority to find a defendant guilty of lesser-included offenses, the trial court should be able to give instructions on lesser offenses.
¶ 8. In Harris, the defendant was indicted on three charges of deliberate design murder under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19 (1972) after a shootout on Mill Street in Jackson, Mississippi. 723 So.2d at 547. Harris and two other defendants had fired weapons into a Jeep Cherokee killing Doris, Harold, and Hosea Williamson. Id. Harris fired shots from a .357 magnum handgun, while one of the other defendants used an AK-47 assault rifle. Id. At trial, an expert for the State testified that the three victims were killed by a high velocity weapon not a .357 magnum. Id. At the close of the State's case, Harris moved for directed verdict based on a lack of evidence that he had caused the deaths of the three victims. Id.
¶ 9. The trial judge granted a directed verdict, but allowed the State to proceed on three counts of the lesser offense of aggravated assault, charges for which Harris was never indicted. Id. The trial judge reasoned that an aggravated assault charge is a lesser-included offense of the deliberate design murder charge. Id. The jury convicted Harris of three counts of aggravated assault. Id. Harris appealed claiming that the "after the trial court granted him a directed verdict of acquittal on deliberate design murder, the State should not have been allowed to proceed on the theory that aggravated assault was a lesser-included offense of deliberate design murder." Id. We held that:
A trial court determination of insufficiency leading to a directed verdict of acquittal on the charge of the indictment summarily concludes the State's case on the charge. If the State has made no other charges within the indictment, then the State is precluded from trying the defendant on a lesser offense . a directed verdict on an indictment for murder is a bar to trying the defendant on aggravated assault, since he had not been indicted for the offense of aggravated assault.
Id. at 547-48. We further held that "[w]hen a trial court grants a defendant's motion for directed verdict, the trial court should not thereafter be permitted to alter or modify its apparently unqualified acquittal by permitting the State, through amendment of the accusatory pleading to charge necessarily included lesser offenses." Id. at 548. We relied on URCCC 7.06 which states that "[t]he indictment upon which the defendant is to be tried shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation." We found that Harris was entitled to a grand jury indictment on aggravated assault. Id. We stated that "[t]he State cannot be allowed to charge only the highest offense and then test the evidence as it goes along until the burden for some lesser offense is met." Id. at 549.
¶ 10. Shaw was indicted for murder under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19(l)(a) which states:
(1) The killing of a human being without the authority by law by any means or in any manner shall be murder in the following cases:
(a) When done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being.
The State now asserts that the trial judge should have been authorized to issue a "limited" directed verdict as to the murder charge and allow the State to proceed on the lesser unindicted offense of manslaughter under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-35 which provides that "[t]he killing of a human being, without malice, in the heat of passion, but in a cruel or unusual manner; or by the use of a dangerous weapon, without authority of law, and not in neces sary self-defense, shall be manslaughter." Murder requires "deliberate design" which implies some form of malice. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19. On the other hand, manslaughter requires "without malice, in the heat of passion, but in a cruel or unusual manner; or by the use of a dangerous weapon" which specifically excludes malice. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-35.
¶ 11. The State argues that since this Court has held that notice of a superior charge also includes notice of lesser-included offenses, it should also find notice of a superior charge includes notice of lesser offenses. See Payton v. State, 642 So.2d 1328 (Miss.1994); Porter v. State, 616 So.2d 899 (Miss.1993); Harveston v. State, 493 So.2d 365 (Miss.1986).
¶ 12. Additionally, the State argues that since under Miss.Code. Ann. § 99-19-5, a jury can return a verdict on a lesser-included offense, it should also be able to consider a lesser offense. Section 99-19-5 provides that "[o]n an indictment for any offense the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense as charged, or of any attempt to commit the same offense, or may find him guilty of an inferior offense, or other offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in the offense with which he is charged in the indictment, whether the same be a felony or misdemeanor, without any additional count in the indictment for that purpose."
¶ 13. There is a distinction between the lesser-included offense and lesser offenses. We have repeatedly allowed notice of a superior charge to stand for notice for an unindicted lesser-included offenses, but we have also refused to allow notice of a superior offense to suffice for a lesser offense for which the defendant was not indicted. In Hailey, we held that an indictment for forcible rape could not be submitted to the jury with an instruction for child fondling as it is not a lesser-included offense. 537 So.2d at 412. We found that "the indictment [for forcible rape] did not sufficiently inform Hailey that he might face a charge of child fondling." Id. The elements of rape included (1) carnal knowledge; (2) without consent and by force; and (3) of a female child age 12 years or upward. Id. at 414 (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-65(2) (1972)). The elements of child fondling included (1) a handling or touching or rubbing; (2) of a child under the age of 14 years; (3) by a person above the age of 18 years; and (4) for purposes of gratifying lust or indulging licentious sexual desires. Id. (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 97-5-23 (Supp.1987)).
¶ 14. Under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-5, the jury may only consider "inferior offenses 'necessarily included within the more serious offense.' " Id. (quoting Sanders v. State, 479 So.2d 1097, 1105 (Miss.1985); Gillum v. State, 468 So.2d 856, 861 (Miss.1985); Cannaday v. State, 455 So.2d 713, 725 (Miss.1984)). See also Biles v. State, 338 So.2d 1004 (Miss.1976); Gray v. State, 220 Miss. 220, 70 So.2d 524 (1954); Bogan v. State, 176 Miss. 655, 170 So. 282 (1936); Brown v. State, 103 Miss. 664, 60 So. 727 (1913); Bedell v. State, 50 Miss. 492 (1874). "[T]his section only authorize[s] convictions of inferior constituent offenses unless there be an additional count in the indictment." 537 So.2d at 414-15 (citing Callahan v. State, 419 So.2d 165, 176 (Miss.1982)). This Court held that "[i]f under the statute (1) the lesser offense is necessarily included within the statutory definition of the charged offense, or (2) the indictment contains such allegations that a lesser offense is necessarily charged in the indictment, then the State may receive the benefit of Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-5 if the evidence supports an instruction on the lesser offense." Id. at 416. This is the scenario present in the case sub judice. Shaw was indicted for murder the elements of which do include all the requisite elements for manslaughter.
¶ 15. We have relied on Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-5 and found that an indictment for felony child abuse did not place a defendant on notice as to a possible charge of misdemeanor contributing to the neglect of a child. Moore v. State, 799 So.2d 89, 90-91 (Miss.2001). We found that " 'if the State proved the elements of felonious child abuse, it would not follow a fortiori that all the elements of child neglect were also proven.' " Id. at 91. (quoting Payton, 642 So.2d at 1334). "A defendant in a criminal case can be found guilty of a lesser-included offense, so long as it is necessarily a lesser-included offense of the offense charged." Id.
¶ 16. Additionally, the Court of Appeals has held that an indictment for armed robbery necessarily included the offense of simple robbery; therefore, the jury could be instructed on the lesser-included offense even though it was not contained in the indictment. Fulcher v. State, 805 So.2d 556, 560-61 (Miss.Ct.App.2001). " 'The purpose of an indictment is to put the defendant on notice of the nature and cause of the charges against him.' " Id. (quoting Richardson v. State, 769 So.2d 230, 233 (Miss.Ct.App.2000)). The Court of Appeals held that " '[a] lesser-included offense by definition is one in which all its essential ingredients are contained in the offense for which the accused is indicted, but not all of the essential ingredients of the indicted offense.' " Id. at 560 (citing Payton, 642 So.2d at 1334 (quoting Porter, 616 So.2d at 909-10)). In rejecting the application of Harris, the Court of Appeals found that it dealt with a lesser-included offense; therefore Harris was inapplicable. Id. at 561.
¶ 17. In Odom v. State, 767 So.2d 242, 246 (Miss.Ct.App.2000), the Court of Appeals held that an instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple assault was proper when the indictment was for aggravated assault. The Court found Harris, inapplicable since this case involved a lesser-included offense, not a lesser offense. Mat 245.
¶ 18. A "lesser-included offense" is very different than a "lesser offense." The essential elements of a lesser-included offense are among the essential elements of the superior offense. See Fulcher, 805 So.2d at 560 (citing Payton, 642 So.2d at 1334 (quoting Porter, 616 So.2d at 909-10)). In his specially concurring opinion in Porter, Chief Justice Hawkins stated that:
A lesser-included offense by definition is one in which all its essential ingredients are contained in the offense for which the accused is indicted, but not all of the essential ingredients of the indicted offense. An accused could not be guilty of the offense for which he is indicted without at the same time being guilty of the lesser-included offense. The lesser-included crime is encompassed within the crime for which the accused is indicted. Harper v. State, 478 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Miss.1985). There may very well be a separate, distinct and less serious crime which the proof at trial shows the defendant committed, but this does not necessarily mean it is a lesser-included offense. To constitute a lesser-included offense, every one of the essential ingredients must also constitute essential ingredients of the more serious crime of which the accused is indicted.
616 So.2d at 909-10.
¶ 19. In Ostrander, the defendant was indicted for second offense DUI. 803 So.2d at 1173. At the conclusion of the State's evidence, Ostrander moved for a directed verdict claiming that the State had failed to prove his prior DUI conviction, and as a result failed to prove a required element of its case. Id. The trial judge overruled his motion as to the case as a whole, but ruled that the prosecution could proceed on a charge of first offense DUI since it was a lesser-included offense of second offense DUI. Id. at 1174. The trial judge stated that
The gist of this offense is operating a motor vehicle while impaired. The enhancement provided by the first, second, and third offenses concerns punishment. And amendments can be allowed to conform to the evidence and proof here. And certainly first offense DUI or first conviction DUI is a lesser offense of the second offense, which is a lesser offense of a third or felony offense.
Id. A jury found Ostrander guilty of first offense DUI. Id. On appeal, Ostrander argued that Harris precluded the jury from convicted him of first offense DUI. We held that:
This Court's decision in Harris, does not prevent the jury from convicting Ostran-der of first offense DUI. In Harris, this Court concluded that "where the accusatory pleading fails separately to charge lesser-included offenses, and the court grants a motion for directed verdict of acquittal, the judgement of acquittal on the charged offense includes acquittal on all uncharged lesser-included felony offenses." Id. at 549. This holding must not be interpreted outside the factual and procedural context of Harris. In Harris, the trial court's grant of the defendant's motion for directed verdict was an "apparently unqualified acquittal." Id. at 548. This Court observed, "The difference between a directed verdict and a jury verdict lies only in the source; the effect of the acquittal is the same in either case." Id. (Citing State ex rel. Robinson v. Blackburn, 367 So.2d 360, 362-63 (La.1979)). The Court also stated that "a judgment of acquittal, whether entered by jury verdict or by grant of a directed verdict should be accorded equal weight and consequences." Id. (Citing People v. McElroy, 208 Cal.App.3d 1415, 256 Cal.Rptr. 853, 858 (1989)). In the case at bar, the trial judge expressly limited his directed verdict to the second offense DUI. Such an acquittal, accompanied by an indication that the judgment did not encompass acquittal of the lesser-included offense, does not protect Ostrander from liability from the lesser offense necessarily included in the second offense DUI.
803 So.2d at 1176-77. We noted that "[n]o facts were altered by the directed verdict, and no defense was suddenly unavailable." Id. at 1177. Ostrander involved the acquittal of a superior offense and the State's proceeding on a lesser-included offense.
¶ 20. The State cites to other jurisdictions: People v. McElroy, 208 Cal.App.3d 1415, 256 Cal.Rptr. 853 (Cal.Ct.App.1989); State v. Morris, 331 N.W.2d 48 (N.D.1983); and State v. Foster, 230 Neb. 607, 433 N.W.2d 167, 168 (1988).
¶ 21. In McElroy, the defendant was convicted of fifteen counts of robbery with the personal use of a firearm, ten counts of robbery while armed with a firearm, two counts of robbery, one count of attempted robbery with personal use of a firearm, and one count of attempted robbery while armed with a firearm. 208 Cal.App.3d at 1418-19, 256 Cal.Rptr. 853. At the conclusion of the State's case, McElroy moved for acquittal as to two of the counts of robbery claiming the evidence failed to show any property actually being taken. Id. at 1422-23, 256 Cal.Rptr. 853. The State moved to amend one of these counts to attempted robbery, which was granted. Id. at 1423, 256 Cal.Rptr. 853. On the other count, the State argued that proper ty had been taken therefore a count of robbery was justified. Id. The trial court disagreed and orally granted McElroy's motion for directed verdict without qualification as to that count. Id. The State then moved to amend that count to attempted robbery, which was granted over McEl-roy's objection. Id. In finding that the trial court's unqualified acquittal prevented an attempted robbery conviction as to the one count, the court noted that "[o]ur decision, of course, does not prohibit the trial court from appropriately limiting the impact of the grant of [directed verdict] motion." Id. at 1424, 256 Cal.Rptr. 853. One major difference between McElroy and Harris, is that McElroy deals with lesser-included offenses, whereas Harris deals with lesser offenses.
¶ 22. In Morris, the defendants were convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and possession of less than one half ounce of marijuana. 331 N.W.2d at 48. On appeal, the defendants argued that the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence for which the jury could convict. Id. at 55. In finding that the trial judge was empowered to give a limited acquittal, the court stated that "[a] trial court's granting of a motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to the major offense charged does not preclude submission of the case to the jury on the basis of the lesser-included offense instruction unless, of course, the granting of the motion for acquittal extends to the lesser-included offenses." Id. at 56 (citing Howard v. United States, 237 F.2d 216 (D.C.Cir. 1956); State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1980); State v. Strong, 339 S.W.2d 759 (Mo.1960); State v. Vincent, 321 S.W.2d 439 (Mo.1959)). Again, there is a major difference between Morris and Harris. Morris addresses acquittal of superior offenses and submission of lesser-included offenses to the jury. Harris addresses lesser offenses with different elements.
¶ 23. In Foster, the defendant was indicted with one count of first degree assault. 433 N.W.2d at 168. After closing arguments the judge noted that "there's a first degree assault charge against Mr. Foster, and its my impression as a matter of law that that charge fails because I feel that the — that the evidence is insufficient for any reasonable minds to conclude that there was a serious bodily injury." Id. at 168. The Court found the defendant could not be guilty of first degree assault, but submitted to the jury attempted first degree assault, a lesser-included offense. Id. at 168-69. The Court found that "where the State fails to demonstrate a prima facie case on the crime charged, but does so on a lessor included offense, the trial court in its discretion may direct a verdict on the crime charged and submit the evidence to the trier of fact for consideration on the lesser-included offense." Id. at 169. Again, Foster is different from Harris. Foster concerns a lesser-included offense, the elements of which are contained in the superior offense. Harris contains a lesser offense, the elements of which are different than those of the charge in the indictment.
¶ 24. The State argues that manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder, and, therefore, it is distinguished from Harris and should have been permitted to proceed.
¶ 25. Harris is inapplicable to the case sub judice because manslaughter has been consistently held by this Court to be a lesser-included offense of murder. The reliance by the trial court on Harris is misplaced. Harris dealt with a lesser offense and has no bearing on a lesser-included offense because "[c]rucial to that decision [Harris ] is the fact that, under our longstanding precedents, assault is not viewed as a lesser-included offense to the crime of murder." Wolfe v. State, 743 So.2d 380, 387 (Miss.1999). See also Fulcher v. State, 805 So.2d 556, 560-61 (Miss.Ct.App.2001).
¶ 26. We have consistently held that an indictment for murder includes the lesser-included charge of manslaughter:
The long-standing common-law rule is that an indictment for murder includes all lower grades of felonious homicide. Under this general rule, "on an indictment charging murder generally an accused may be found guilty of manslaughter . and, where manslaughter has been divided by statute into degrees, of any of the statutory degrees." 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations, § 280 (1944). This Court has repeatedly applied the general rule and upheld convictions of manslaughter obtained under an indictment for murder. Wells v. State, 305 So.2d 333 (Miss.1974); Roberson v. State, 257 So.2d 505 (Miss.1972); King v. State, 251 Miss. 161, 168 So.2d 637 (1964); Calicoat v. State, 131 Miss. 169, 95 So. 318 (1922[1923]).
Kelly v. State, 463 So.2d 1070, 1073 (Miss.1985).
¶ 27. The fact that manslaughter proof is inconsistent with that of murder is of no consequence. "[B]y way of analogy, we consider heat of passion manslaughter a lesser-included offense to the charge of murder, even though that particular form of manslaughter contemplates proof of facts inconsistent with the principal charge of murder." Grayer v. State, 519 So.2d 438, 440 n. 3 (Miss.1988) (quoting Isom v. State, 481 So.2d 820, 824-25 (Miss.1985)). Manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder. Id. at 825.
¶ 28. The Court of Appeals has also addressed the murder-manslaughter issue and stated, "[i]n order to authorize [a lesser-included offense] instruction the more serious offense must include all the elements of the lesser offense, that is, it is impossible to commit the greater offense without at the same time committing the lesser-included offense." Hester v. State, 841 So.2d 158, 162 (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (quoting Shannon v. State, 739 So.2d 468 (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (quoting Sanders v. State, 479 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Miss.1985))). The Court of Appeals found that manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder under the Shannon test. Hester, 841 So.2d at 162.
¶ 29. Along with our case law, our statutory law clearly allows the jury to find a defendant guilty for an "inferior offense" of the offense charged in the indictment.
On an indictment for any offense the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense as charged, or of any attempt to commit the same offense, or may find him guilty of an inferior offense, or other offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in the offense with which he is charged in the indictment, whether the same be a felony or misdemeanor, without any additional count in the indictment for that purpose.
Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-5 (Rev.2000) (emphasis added).
¶ 30. This case is clearly distinguishable from the Court's holding in Harris. Since manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder, the jury here should have been allowed to decide whether Shaw is guilty of that lesser-included offense.
CONCLUSION
¶ 31. The trial court erred in its application of our holding in Harris. The trial court erred in not allowing the State to submit to the jury whether Shaw was guilty of manslaughter as the lesser-included offense of murder.
¶ 32. PRESENTED QUESTION ANSWERED.
SMITH, C.J., DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. WALLER, P.J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. CARLSON, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY COBB, P.J. DIAZ AND GRAVES, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.
. This statute renders this appeal as one of "no controversy" since it will not subject the defendant to further prosecution or reversal of the trial court's acquittal. Under the statute there is no need for the defendant to respond to this appeal.