Opinion ID: 1924358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant instructions d-24 and d-25.

Text: ¶ 27. The trial court refused instructions D-24 and D-25, which embodied Montana's theory of excusable homicide. Instruction D-24 told the jury that it must find Montana not guilty if it finds that Montana in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation under the circumstances then and there existing, fired the pistol in the air and that one of the rounds fired into the air accidentally and/or through misfortune killed Rashad Holloway. Instruction D-25 told the jury it must find Montana not guilty if it finds that the fatal shot was fired through accident and misfortune at a time when Montana had no unlawful intent toward Rashad Holloway. ¶ 28. Montana argues that he has presented evidence sufficient to create a jury question on the defense of accident or misfortune pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-17 (2000), which provides: 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; (c) When committed upon any sudden combat, without undue advantage being taken, and without any dangerous weapon being used, and not done in a cruel or unusual manner. ¶ 29. Instruction D-24 stated a defense pursuant to subsection (b) of the above statute, and D-25 stated a defense pursuant to subsection (a). A defendant is entitled to jury instructions on his theory of the case whenever there is evidence that would support a jury's finding on that theory. Jackson v. State, 645 So.2d 921, 924 (Miss.1994). However, Montana presented no evidence to support a defense under either subsection (a) or (b). ¶ 30. Montana points to his statement to police that he intentionally fired the weapon in the air and did not intend to shoot Holloway. He stated that it was possible that, when he was waving the gun in the air and firing, my hand might have went a little too far down to the wrong direction .... But I did not intentionally try to shoot or aim at somebody. Montana told police that he never intentionally pointed the gun at the vehicle as it was leaving, but that his hand might have come down as he was firing the rounds. No evidence was presented that any of the shots fired by Montana were accidentally fired, but only that the direction of the bullet was accidental. The trial judge correctly held that because Montana intentionally fired the weapon, he was precluded from receiving the requested instructions. ¶ 31. Montana relies on Fears v. State, No. 97-CT-00558-SCT, 1999 WL 1000670 (Miss. Nov.4, 1999), apparently as support for both instructions. That opinion was withdrawn by this Court and superseded by Fears v. State, 779 So.2d 1125 (Miss. 2000). Neither version furthers Montana's argument. ¶ 32. Instruction D-25 asked the jury to find that the fatal shot was fired through accident and misfortune. All evidence indicated that Montana intentionally fired the weapon. Also precluding Montana's defense under § 97-3-17(a) is the fact that he fired his weapon within the city limits of Gulfport-an unlawful act. See Thibodeaux v. State, 652 So.2d 153, 167 (Miss.1995) (holding that headlighting deer is an unlawful act rendering § 97-3-017(a) unavailable as a defense). ¶ 33. A defense under § 97-3-17(b) is likewise unavailable to Montana. Again, all evidence demonstrated that each shot fired by Montana was intentionally fired. An intentional act cannot fit the doctrine of accident or misfortune. See Triplett v. State, 666 So.2d 1356, 1362 (Miss.1995) (defendant was entitled to accident or misfortune instruction only where evidence showed there was no intent on his part to fire the fatal shot). ¶ 34. Our opinion in Evans v. State, 797 So.2d 811 (Miss.2000), is instructive. In that case, the defendant, Evans, was involved in a bar brawl in which he fired a gun, killing Bunton, who was standing directly in front of Evans at the time. Evans denied knowingly shooting Bunton, and explained that he intended only to fired the gun straight up in the air in an attempt to get the patrons to disperse. Id. at 813. Evans claimed, that the gun accidentally went off when he was raising it to point it up in the air. Id. at n. 1. This Court found that Evans was entitled to have his theory, supported by § 97-3-17(b), presented to the jury. 797 So.2d at 814-15. Likewise, in Day v. State, 589 So.2d 637 (Miss.1991), the defendant, Day, testified that he intended to fire a shot into the air in order to scare the victim off, but while attempting to disengage the gun's safety, the weapon accidentally fired in the victim's direction, fatally striking him. We held that the evidence support[ed] Day's contention that the actual firing was accidental. Id. at 642. ¶ 35. The crucial distinction between Evans and Day, on the one hand, and the case sub judice, on the other, is that there was evidence in Evans and Day that the firing of the weapon was accidental. There was absolutely no such evidence presented in the case at bar. Rather, Montana's statement indicates that each and every shot fired from his weapon was intentional. The trial court correctly held that an intentional act cannot be excused under the doctrine of accident and misfortune. Denying the requested instructions was not error.