Case Name: Noah Brent CHINN v. STATE of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2007-06-28
Citations: 958 So. 2d 1223
Docket Number: No. 2005-KA-02231-SCT
Parties: Noah Brent CHINN v. STATE of Mississippi.
Judges: WALLER, P.J., GRAVES, DICKINSON AND LAMAR, JJ., CONCUR. EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY SMITH, C.J., CARLSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 958
Pages: 1223–1231

Head Matter:
Noah Brent CHINN v. STATE of Mississippi.
No. 2005-KA-02231-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
June 28, 2007.
Michael Duane Mitchell, attorney for appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by Deirdre McCrory, attorney for appellee.

Opinion:
DIAZ, Justice,
for the Court.
¶ 1. Noah Brent Chinn was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to a twenty-year prison term. Finding that the trial court erred in failing to grant a jury instruction on the defendant's theory of the case, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Facts
¶ 2. Around 2:00 a.m. on July 31, 2004, Chinn and his wife Shaniqua arrived at the house of Latonsia and Jerry Patterson. According to Latonsia, the Chinns were "arguing and fussing," and her husband Jerry "got in between them . to try to see what the problem was." Shaniqua then jumped into the Chinns' car and started to drive away. Chinn ran around the back end of the car, and Shaniqua backed the car into a fence. He then attempted to keep his wife from leaving, and during the struggle, Shaniqua was shot in the chest and killed. The Patter-sons were the only two witnesses.
¶ 3. Latonsia testified that she saw Chinn reach inside the car with his right hand. She then saw a flash of light and heard a gunshot, but could not see if Chinn and Shaniqua had been struggling over a gun. Latonsia then saw Chinn holding a gun, which he tossed over the fence. Chinn proceeded to pull his wife out of the car, where she stood up and took one last breath before collapsing on the ground. Chinn then lay on top of her, begging her not to die and yelling for someone to call the police.
¶ 4. Jerry Patterson's testimony substantially corroborated his wife's version of events. He also stated that he could not see if the couple was struggling over a gun before it fired. However, Jerry testified that he saw Chinn with both arms inside the car. Jerry also testified that he saw Chinn's arm jerk when the gun fired. After Shaniqua had been pulled from the car, Jerry heard Chinn saying, "Baby don't leave me." According to Jerry, the defendant remained on top of his wife until the police arrived. Both eye witnesses testified that Chinn did not have a gun before he ran to the car.
¶ 5. Sergeants Robert Morris and Ken Williams arrived at the crime scene. Chinn told them that he had thrown the gun over the fence, and the officers found a Larson .380 caliber semi-automatic pistol approximately forty to fifty feet from Shaniqua's body. The gun's magazine was located a couple of feet away from the gun.
¶ 6. The gun was registered to the defendant. Sergeant Morris testified that it had a safety switch which had to be compressed upward to enable the gun to fire. He also testified that in order to separate the magazine from the gun, a person would have to press a release at the bottom of the gun's handle.
¶ 7. Steve Byrd, an expert in the field of firearm evidence examination, testified that the gun was not considered to have a "hair trigger." A "hair trigger" requires less than two pounds of pressure to fire. He stated that the gun in question required seven pounds of pressure to fire. On cross-examination, Byrd admitted that the gun could have fired if two people were struggling over it.
¶ 8. The pathologist, Dr. Steven Hayne, testified that Shaniqua died from a single gunshot wound to her upper chest. Testing of her blood and urine revealed a blood alcohol content between .18 and .20 percent. Dr. Hayne also stated that Shaniqua had been exposed to marijuana prior to her death.
¶ 9. Finally, Jamie Bush, a fingerprint expert, testified that the firearm bore no identifiable fingerprints.
¶ 10. The defense rested without calling any witnesses.
¶ 11. On appeal, Chinn alleges that the trial court erred in refusing two of his proposed jury instructions because they were required to present his theory of the ease that the shooting was an accident. The State asserts that the trial court correctly refused the instructions as Chinn offered no proof that the shooting was an accident.
Standard of Review
¶ 12. On review, "[j]ury instructions are to be read together and taken as a whole with no one instruction taken out of context." Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 192 (Miss.2001). "A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, or is without foundation in the evidence." Howell v. State, 860 So.2d 704, 745 (Miss.2003) (citing Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991)). "We will not find reversible error "where the instructions actually given, when read together as a whole, fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice.' " Adkins v. Sanders, 871 So.2d 732, 736 (Miss.2004) (quoting Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 782 (Miss.1997)).
¶ 13. Furthermore, every accused has a fundamental right to have her theory of the case presented to a jury, even if the evidence is minimal. We have held that "[i]t is, of course, an absolute right of an accused to have every lawful defense he asserts, even though based upon meager evidence and highly unlikely, to be submitted as a factual issue to be determined by the jury under proper instruction of the court. This Court will never permit an accused to be denied this fundamental right." O'Bryant v. State, 530 So.2d 129, 133 (Miss.1988) (citing Ward v. State, 479 So.2d 713 (Miss.1985); Lancaster v. State, 472 So.2d 363 (Miss.1985); Pierce v. State, 289 So.2d 901 (Miss.1974)). This Court recently has stated that "[w]e greatly value the right of a defendant to present his theory of the case and 'where the defendant's proffered instruction has an evidentiary basis, properly states the law, and is the only instruction presenting his theory of the case, refusal to grant it constitutes reversible error.' " Phillipson v. State, 943 So.2d 670, 671-72 (Miss.2006) (citing Adams v. State, 772 So.2d 1010, 1016 (Miss.2000)).
Discussion
¶ 14. First, we must determine whether Chinn's proposed instruction properly stated the law. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-17 (Rev.2006) provides in relevant part:
The killing of any human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be excusable:
(a) When committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent;
(b) When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation;
At trial, Chinn offered proper instructions, which tracked the language contained in subsections (a) and (b) as cited above.
¶ 15. Second, we examine whether the given jury instructions covered Chinn's theory of the case. The State gave two instructions setting forth the elements of both murder and manslaughter. While both instructed the jury concerning self-defense, neither included an exception for an accidental shooting under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-8-17. Therefore, Chinn's accident theory of the case was not sufficiently covered by other instructions. See Adkins, 871 So.2d at 736.
¶ 16. Finally, we look at whether there was sufficient foundation in the evidence for an accident instruction. The State is incorrect in its assertion that there was no evidentiary foundation supporting the defendant's accident theory. Even though Chinn did not present evidence on his behalf, sufficient evidence was elicited from the State's presentation of the case to support the defendant's theory. Neither of the two eyewitnesses could see inside the vehicle, and both testified that Chinn did not have a gun before he reached into the car. They also testified that after Mrs. Chinn was shot, the defendant tried to resuscitate her, pleading with her not to die.
Defense Counsel: After Ms. Chinn was on the ground what did you see?
Mrs. Patterson: I saw him laying on top of her. And he was begging her not to die, please say something. He was pumping her chest . he was trying to save her.
Defense Counsel: Was he crying?
Mrs. Patterson: Yes, sir.
Defense Counsel: Okay. Was there any other statements coming from his mouth that you recall?
Mrs. Patterson: Just, Shaniqua, please don't die.
Mr. Patterson: Shaniqua was already out on the ground when I got around there. Noah was on top of her crying. He was saying, baby, don't leave me. That's when I got on the phone and started talking with the dispatch. He stayed over with Shaniqua until the cops got there.
According to both witnesses, Chinn lay on top of his wife, crying, until the police arrived. Other than the foregoing, Chinn made no other statements at the scene after the shot was fired.
¶ 17. The physical evidence, although minimal, also could support Chinn's theory that the shooting was an accident. Sergeant Morris testified that the weapon used was the type that automatically feeds another bullet into the chamber after being fired, so that it is instantly "ready to fire again," and later agreed on cross-examination that Shaniqua Chinn was found with only one gunshot wound. The State's expert witness, Steve Byrd, testified on cross-examination that although the gun in question was not classified as a "hair trigger," it was possible that the seven pounds of pressure needed to fire the gun could have been exerted by Chinn pulling the gun in one direction and Shani-qua pulling it in another. Finally, the fingerprints on the gun could not be identified as belonging to either Chinn or his wife. This evidence, along with the eyewitness testimony of the facts surrounding the shooting, could lead reasonable jurors to conclude that this was indeed an accidental shooting.
¶ 18. Chinn was entitled to have his theory of the case submitted to the jury under proper instruction of the court. Denial of this fundamental right is grounds for reversal. As this issue is dispositive, there is no need to discuss Chinn's other claims on appeal.
¶ 19. Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
¶ 20. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WALLER, P.J., GRAVES, DICKINSON AND LAMAR, JJ., CONCUR. EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY SMITH, C.J., CARLSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ.