Opinion ID: 2494425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: ¶ 13. A jury convicted Sands of two counts of manslaughter and one count of aggravated assault. Sands argues that his motion for directed verdict should have been granted because there was no evidence that he fired a shot and no evidence to support the heat-of-passion element of manslaughter. ¶ 14. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows `beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to meet a conviction.' [1] ¶ 15. The reviewing Court is not required to decide whether it thinks the State proved the defendant's guilt. Rather, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [2] ¶ 16. If the facts and inferences `point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty,' then the proper remedy is for the appellate court to reverse and render. [3] But if the evidence shows that reasonable and fair-minded persons, while considering the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in the exercise of impartial deliberations, might have reached different conclusions on every element of the offense, then the evidence will be deemed to have been sufficient. [4] ¶ 17. To find Sands guilty on any of the counts of the indictment, the jury had to conclude from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sands had shot the victims. And on the manslaughter charges, the State was required to prove that Sands had killed the victims without malice, in the heat of passion by use of a deadly weapon without authority of law, and not in necessary self-defense. [5] The State argues that there was ample evidence of defendant's being involved and firing shots, and such evidence is legally sufficient to uphold a manslaughter conviction. ¶ 18. McNair, the only surviving victim, testified that he heard shots coming from Rhodes's side of the car, which, according to the evidence, was not in the same vicinity as where he momentarily saw Sands crouched at the back of his car, the Lexus. McNair added that, after the shooting started, he looked again towards the Lexus and saw Sands at the back of the Lexus with a small gun, but he never at any point saw Sands shoot the weapon. ¶ 19. McNair's testimony that he had seen Sands crouched behind his car with a gun was the State's only proof that Sands shot anyone. This is wholly insufficient, and particularly so in light of the following evidence: All of the bullet fragments and shell casings found by law enforcement were either .40 or .45 caliber; all of the .40 caliber casings were traced to a single gun; McInnis was armed with a .40 caliber Kel-Tec pistol; all of the .45 caliber casings were traced to a single gun; Rhodes was armed with a .45 caliber gun; both McInnis and Rhodes had fired their guns. ¶ 20. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, this Court finds that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Sands shot anyone. Therefore, Sands's convictions must be reversed.
¶ 21. Rhodes was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault. Rhodes claims insufficient evidence was shown of the elements of malice aforethought and deliberate design. ¶ 22. Section 97-3-19 of the Mississippi Code reads in pertinent part: (1) The killing of a human being without the authority of 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 any human being. [6] ¶ 23. It is undisputed that Rhodes did not have the authority of law, that both victims had been shot and killed with a firearm, and that Rhodes had shot his firearm multiple times at the victims. So the only question is whether the State presented the jury with sufficient evidence that Rhodes did so with deliberate design. ¶ 24. Under Mississippi law, the terms deliberate design and malice aforethought are considered synonymous and both connote an intent to kill. [7] This intent may be formed quickly, even moments before the act and maybe inferred from the use of a deadly weapon. [8] ¶ 25. McNair testified that the confrontation with Rhodes was based on an earlier break-in, and Rhodes had believed the victims were responsible. Additionally, both McNair and Rhodes testified that Rhodes had possessed and fired a gun. [9] The testimony on these two points, coupled with all reasonable inferences favorable to the prosecution, meet the standard for the deliberate design element. ¶ 26. The State presented sufficient evidence on all elements of murder such that reasonable, fair-minded jurors could have found that the State proved these essential elements as to Rhodes, beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the convictions against Rhodes.