Case Name: Willie Lee DEDEAUX v. STATE of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1993-11-24
Citations: 630 So. 2d 30
Docket Number: No. 91-KA-0164
Parties: Willie Lee DEDEAUX v. STATE of Mississippi.
Judges: PRATHER, P.J., and PITTMAN, McRAE and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 630
Pages: 30–40

Head Matter:
Willie Lee DEDEAUX v. STATE of Mississippi.
No. 91-KA-0164.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Nov. 24, 1993.
James L. Davis, III, Gulfport, for appellant.
Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Deirdre McCrory, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Opinion:
SMITH, Justice,
for the Court:
Willie Lee Dedeaux appeals his conviction of murder and sentence of life imprisonment from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Harrison County. While the evidence presented does not support a conviction of murder, the Court finds that it does support the lesser charge of manslaughter. Because the evidence in this case clearly indicates that Willie Lee Dedeaux killed Luke Turner without malice or premeditation and without justification, this case will be reversed and remanded for resentencing for manslaughter.
FACTS
The ease at bar is representative of the typical "juke joint" confrontation: a marriage gone sour, too much booze consumed, an angry husband and a wife's new found live-in boy friend. Luke and Kim Turner were husband and wife, separated, but not divorced. Kim was living with Willie Lee De-deaux. Turner arrived at Isabell's Lounge at approximately 10:30 p.m. accompanied by Ricardo Lizana. The testimony revealed that Luke and Ricardo had been doing some powerful drinking since 4:00 p.m. Their six and one half hour consumption spree, which staggers the imagination, consisted of the following:
(1) a fifth of "Mad Dog"
(2) a fifth of gin
(3) a fifth of "Thunderbird"
(4) a fifth of "Seagrams 7"
(5) a fifth of "Taca Vodka'
To say Luke Turner was drunk upon arrival at Isabell's would be putting it mildly. His first act inside the premises was to drink from a pitcher of beer, which belonged to someone else.
When Turner saw his estranged wife Kim, he asked her to accompany him outside so that they could discuss their children. While Turner was talking to Kim, Dedeaux "came up and grabbed Kim" and told her to come inside. When Kim asked Dedeaux to let her talk to Luke a few more minutes, Dedeaux told Luke that "he would whip his motherfucking ass." The confrontation between De-deaux and Luke was arguably initiated by Dedeaux. Although there is testimony that Luke was an aggressor in this case, Dedeaux clearly started this incident. However, this does not excuse or justify the killing of Luke. While Luke may be characterized as the aggressor in the events leading up to his death, what is even more clear is that De-deaux used more force than was necessary under the circumstances.
Luke's sister, Toni Brown, testified that if the two men had fought, there would have been just one bloody nose and she doubted that it would have been Luke's. "But one thing that I wouldn't do that Dedeaux did was tell no man twice my size that I was going to beat him ."
Also typical of juke joint shootings is the inconsistent testimony given by various witnesses. Dedeaux's mother, Carolyn Dedeaux Lee, a waitress at Isabell's, gave very conflicting testimony at trial which conflicted with her original statement given to the police. Her statement was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. She testified at trial, "I didn't tell them that . it is in disagreement." Immediately the State produced a tape recording of her statement, and the jury was allowed to hear exactly what she originally told the police, and compare the tape with the written statement.
Carolyn's statement given to the police on the night of the incident contained the following:
"and ah Willie say ah where your car keys, and so I got the car keys and I said what you want with my car keys, he said I need something, he said cause I'm tired of this guy picking at me, way he picks at me, so, so I went outside and I had the keys and I did like that to the truck, so Willie took the keys and he unlocked the trunk, and so my little bag, it stays behind the spare tire, so I got the bag and Willie grabbed the bag and I grabbed the bag back, so I unzipped the bag and he said give me that, and he took the bag and unzipped it, so I said give me the bag back and I had a empty bag so I put it down and I grabbed back the gun and the guy was chasing him on around, so somebody said, I didn't shot straight up in the air and Willie snatched it and so I had the keys still in the trunk, when I went back inside I forgot my keys on the trunk of the ear, and I thought about it, I didn't have my keys in my pocket, and I went back out there to get the keys, so I was trying to get the gun away from Willie, he say, give me the gun, and the guy was steady coming, so I don't know, I, it happened so fast I can't remember how many shots was fired, but Minnie told me that she heard three." (emphasis added)
Carolyn's testimony at trial totally contradicts this statement given to the police the night of the incident. The jury obviously did not ignore her prior statement.
Willie Lee Dedeaux claimed Luke had something in his hand that "he reached back" for and threatened him stating: "I've been promising you this and I am going to give it to you."
Dedeaux claimed that while Luke was chasing him around the cars, his mother got her gun out of the trunk of her car and fired one shot into the ground. Dedeaux stated, "I ran up to her from behind her snatched the gun . and then just shot." Other witnesses testified that Carolyn shot up into the air and that they saw her give the gun to Dedeaux, rather than his grabbing the gun from her.
Carolyn ended up with the gun in her purse. She also failed to tell police initially of the gun's whereabouts. Additionally, she told Dedeaux to leave the premises, after the killing.
A review of Carolyn's statements to police, her testimony at trial and Dedeaux's testimony indicate why the jury convicted Dedeaux of murder. Dedeaux knew the gun was in the trunk of his mother's car and he intended to use it on Luke. He actually had the gun in his hands prior to his mother's ever touching it.
Sgt. Bill Collins, Harrison County Sheriffs Office, searched the scene and did not find any weapon on Luke's body. Collins was unable to obtain any information concerning any prior threats by Luke against Dedeaux.
Kim Luke admitted that when Dedeaux fired the first shot at Luke, Luke was walking towards Dedeaux. Luke fell when the second bullet hit him. The next obvious question is: where was Luke's body when the third bullet was fired? Even more puzzling is the question of why Dedeaux fired a third bullet after Luke had fallen? A case could be made for the jury's murder verdict; however, this case is weak. The trial judge thought the case lacking in proof of murder also.
Even the assistant district attorney had second thoughts. An alleged discovery violation had been committed by the defense for failure to disclose their witnesses to the State until the day of trial. The trial judge allowed the State an interview to question the defense witnesses before continuing with the trial. The assistant district attorney told the court that, had he known about these witnesses, he would have proceeded under a theory of manslaughter. Indeed, the record confirms that the State insisted that the trial judge grant a manslaughter instruction. The defense objected at trial to such an instruction being granted, but now raises this issue for consideration on appeal.
Dedeaux appeals to this Court and presents six issues all of which are without merit except issue III which warrants discussion. Issue III is as follows:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN REFUSING TO GRANT S-5, THE STATE'S MANSLAUGHTER INSTRUCTION.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND LAW
"Our law is well settled that jury instructions are not given unless there is an eviden-tiary basis in the record for such." Davis v. Davis, 530 So.2d 694, 701 (Miss.1988).
Dedeaux's ease hinged upon the element of self-defense. Dedeaux now asserts it was eiTor to deny the manslaughter instruction. Dedeaux is now represented by different counsel. One might normally view the decision of the trial defense counsel to refuse the manslaughter instruction as trial strategy, and viewed as such the issue would be clearly barred on appeal. Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss.1988); Cummins v. State, 515 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss.1987). However, where it appears from the record in its entirety that there has been a miscarriage of justice, this Court applies Mississippi Supreme Court Rule 28(a)(3) to prevent manifest injustice. Cummins v. State, 515 So.2d at 876, 877 also addressed whether the trial court was in error for refusing to instruct the jury:
The State's instructions were offered without any objection . In the absence of an objection at trial, this Court will examine only to prevent manifest injustice.... Gates v. State, 484 So.2d 1002 (Miss.1986); Shelton v. State, 445 So.2d 844 (Miss.1984)
In light of the evidence reflected in the record, the murder conviction in the case sub judice appears to rise to the level of manifest injustice.
The jury heard all the testimony and obviously rejected Dedeaux's self-defense argument. Although strategically the manslaughter instruction was rejected by De-deaux, this decision does not detract from the jury's finding and from the testimony at trial that Dedeaux unlawfully took the life of Luke. To discharge the defendant cannot be justified.
In Wells v. State, 305 So.2d 333, 339-340 (Miss.1974), the Court held:
In the case at bar, when the jury found the defendant guilty of murder, it necessarily found that defendant was guilty of homicide which was not justifiable or excusable, thus rejecting the defense of self defense and accident. If the case is remanded for a new trial on the indictment, the defendant would thereby be permitted to present to a second jury his defenses which were rejected by the first jury. We see no sound reason to remand for a new trial and thereby require the defendant to again be convicted of manslaughter before being punished.
In Clemons v. State, 473 So.2d 943 (Miss.1985), this Court held that the facts would not support a conviction of murder but the evidence did establish guilt of manslaughter. The ease was remanded for resentencing for the crime of manslaughter. Accord Bradley v. State, 413 So.2d 725 (Miss.1982).
CONCLUSION
Applying the law set forth in Wells and Clemons to the facts in the ease sub judice, the same result should be reached. The facts herein clearly support manslaughter. According to all witnesses at trial, Luke was unarmed. According to the police investigators, both Luke's body and the area around it did not reveal any weapon. Dedeaux unlocked the trunk to his mother's car according to her statement. Dedeaux knew the gun was in the trunk. He intended to get the gun and use it against Luke. According to Carolyn's statement, Dedeaux actually had his hands on the gun prior to her getting it away from him and firing the first shot. Dedeaux used a greater amount of force than necessary under the circumstances. This clearly was a killing in the heat of passion. This Court will follow its holdings in Wells and Clemons, and reverse and remand for resentencing for the crime of manslaughter.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
PRATHER, P.J., and PITTMAN, McRAE and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ., concur.
HAWKINS, C.J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by DAN M. LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN, J.
BANKS, J., concurs in part, dissents in part with a separate written opinion.