Opinion ID: 1557127
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Trial Court Erred by Denying Parker's Motions for Directed Verdict.

Text: ¶ 29. Parker argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion and renewed motion for directed verdict. Specifically, Parker claims that the State failed to prove all of the elements of deliberate-design murder. Parker further avers that Buck and Justin Moore, two of the State's witnesses testifying against Parker, had an interest in Parker's conviction, but never states how or why this was so. On the contrary, the record shows that neither Buck nor Justin Moore would gain anything from Parker's conviction, as neither men were ever considered suspects in the case. ¶ 30. This Court reviews the denial of a motion for a directed verdict de novo. Branch v. State, 998 So.2d 411, 416 (Miss.2008). In reviewing a denial of a motion for a directed verdict, if we determine the evidence points in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense such that a reasonable juror could not have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we must reverse the conviction. Id. ( quoting Coleman v. State, 947 So.2d 878, 881 (Miss.2006)). ¶ 31. The elements for deliberate-design murder are: (1) the defendant killed the victim, (2) without authority of law, and (3) with deliberate design to effect his death. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19 (Rev.2006). Parker argues that the State never presented proof of each of these elements, and that, if anything, it minimally made a prima facie case against him. However, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support the murder conviction. ¶ 32. The evidence in the record clearly shows (1) that Parker was in possession of a .380 caliber weapon and cartridges on the night in question, (2) that Parker shot and injured Justin Moore, (3) that Parker shot and killed Jarvis Moore, and (4) that Jarvis Moore's death resulted from several gunshot wounds originating from a .380 caliber weapon. The evidence further shows that Parker killed Jarvis Moore without the authority of law, as nothing in the record demonstrates that Parker's life was in imminent danger. ¶ 33. Finally, there is evidence in the record to support the jury's finding that Parker killed Jarvis Moore with the deliberate design to effect his death. This Court has acknowledged that `deliberate design' to take the life of another connotes intent to kill. Jones v. State, 710 So.2d 870, 878 (Miss.1998) (citing Peterson v. State, 242 So.2d 420, 427 (Miss.1970)). [D]eliberate design to kill a person may be formed very quickly, and perhaps only moments before the act of consummating the intent. Brown v. State, 965 So.2d 1023, 1030 (Miss.2007) (quoting Gossett v. State, 660 So.2d 1285, 1293 (Miss.1995)). Parker admitted in his statement that he had possessed the gun at least a week prior to the shooting. He further admitted that, during the shooting, he deliberately aimed at the person who punched him. Ketrick Buck testified that Parker popped off a couple of rounds, paused, then fired more rapidly, all while aiming at Jarvis Moore. The evidence supports the finding that Parker had the requisite intent, even if it formed just moments before the act. ¶ 34. In light of these facts, this Court finds that the evidence is sufficient to support Parker's murder conviction, and that any rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the State proved each element of deliberate-design murder. Thus, the trial court properly denied Parker's motion for a directed verdict.