Opinion ID: 1689027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: should the evidence presented at trial have resulted in a verdict of manslaughter instead of murder?

Text: ¶ 22. Smiley next contends that he should only be guilty of manslaughter because the victim provoked him by coming onto his property and cursing at him while carrying a weapon. Smiley asserts that he shot the victim only after feeling threatened by him. Smiley points to the theory of `imperfect self-defense' whereby an intentional killing may be considered manslaughter if done without malice but under a bona fide (but unfounded) belief that it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Wade v. State, 748 So.2d 771, 774 (Miss.1999) quoting Lanier v. State, 684 So.2d 93, 97 (Miss.1996). ¶ 23. The present case is not one of imperfect self-defense. The evidence shows that the victim was shot in the back as he walked away from Smiley. Witnesses heard Smiley say, I got that bitch and I done told that mother f_____ about fooling with me, just after the victim was shot. These facts alone are enough to show that Smiley was not acting under a false belief of immediate danger or without malice. While it was shown at trial that Smiley and the victim had disagreed on prior occasion, there was no testimony presented regarding violence or threats of violence between the two men before the shooting occurred. Viewing as true the evidence which supports the jury's verdict, the jury's finding of murder, as opposed to manslaughter, was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence constituting an unconscionable injustice. This issue is without merit.