Opinion ID: 1684031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in failing and refusing to grant instruction d-3 or some other manslaughter instruction requested by the appellant?

Text: In substantiating the foregoing proposition, counsel for the appellant cites Miss. Code Ann. §§ 97-3-27 and 97-3-35. Section 97-3-35 reads as follows: The killing of a human being, without malice, in the heat of passion, but in a cruel or unusual manner, or by use of a dangerous weapon, without authority of law, and not in necessary self-defense, shall be manslaughter. Having cited this code section, Reed argues that he thought the deceased was reaching for something in his pants. Thereto, he was afraid that Merrill was going to do something to him, and when he fired the shot he just lost control of himself. Keeping this idea of self-defense in mind, Counsel for Reed explains Though there is proof of self-defense, where there is evidence of a killing being perpetrated in the heat of passion, the Court should give, especially on request of the defendant, an instruction on manslaughter as a lesser included offense in a murder prosecution. See Cromeans v. State, 261 So.2d 453 (Miss. 1972). In furtherance of the foregoing argument, Reed cites Lanier v. State, 450 So.2d 69 (Miss. 1984). Applying the reasoning in Lanier, counsel for Reed explains the jury could have found that the fatal shot had been the result of sudden confrontation arising without deliberate design on the part of the defendant thereby reducing the offense to manslaughter. With Reed's argument in mind, this Court concludes that the evidence presented in the record makes out a case of murder. Merrill, who was unarmed, made no threatening gestures toward Reed and, in fact, tried to duck behind another student. Reed shot Merrill in the head and shot him three more times after he had fallen. In light of this evidence, the Court holds that the defendant's own testimony refuted his heat of passion theory. More specifically, this Court points to the defendant's testimony that his purpose in going to the classroom was to ask Robert what this was all about, why it's still going, why they still jumping on me, why they still picking. Obviously, this testimony fails to reveal the frame of mind usually associated with sudden heat of passion. Moreover, this Court holds that the defendant's actions do not constitute the crime of manslaughter. Having stated the foregoing positions, this Court affirms with the trial court below that this case is either murder or not guilty. Therein, the refusal of the lesser included offense instruction is proper in this case.