Opinion ID: 2785878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence of Manslaughter

Text: ¶14. Byrd did not file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), but he preserved this issue with his motion for a directed verdict. Smith v. State, 646 So. 2d 538, 542 (Miss. 1994). On review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court determines “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.” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (Miss. 2005) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)). ¶15. Mississippi Code Section 97-3-35, which codifies the crime of manslaughter, states that “[t]he killing of a human being, without malice, in the heat of passion, but in a cruel or unusual manner, or by the use of a dangerous weapon, without authority of law, and not in necessary self-defense, shall be manslaughter.” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-35 (Rev. 2014). This Court has provided the following definition of “heat of passion:” [a] state of violent and uncontrollable rage engendered by a blow or certain other provocation given, which will reduce a homicide from the grade of murder to that of manslaughter. Passion or anger suddenly aroused at the time by some immediate and reasonable provocation, by words or acts of one at the time. The term includes an emotional state of mind characterized by anger, rage, hatred, furious resentment or terror. 7 McCune v. State, 989 So. 2d 310, 319 (Miss. 2008) (quoting Agnew v. State, 783 So. 2d 699, 703 (Miss. 2001)). For heat-of-passion manslaughter, “there must be such circumstances as would indicate that a normal mind would be roused to the extent that reason is overthrown and passion usurps the mind destroying judgment.” McCune, 989 So. 2d at 319 (quoting Agnew, 783 So. 2d at 703-04). ¶16. Self-defense is codified at Mississippi Code Section 97-3-15(f), which provides that the killing of a human being is justifiable “[w]hen committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished.” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-15(f) (Rev. 2014). “The apprehension or fear that will justify killing another in self-defense must appear objectively real to a reasonable person of average prudence.” Hart v. State, 637 So. 2d 1329, 1339 (Miss. 1994). The defense theory of imperfect self-defense “can reduce intentional killings from murder to manslaughter where the killing is committed ‘without malice but under a bona fide (but unfounded) belief that it was necessary to prevent great bodily harm.’” Young v. State, 99 So. 3d 159, 165 (Miss. 2012) (quoting Moore v. State, 859 So. 2d 379, 383 (Miss. 2003)). ¶17. Byrd’s jury was instructed on murder, heat-of-passion manslaughter, imperfect selfdefense manslaughter, and self-defense. The jury found him guilty of manslaughter. Byrd argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his manslaughter conviction because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. He argues that the photographs of his torn shirt, scraped knees, and injured neck and the evidence that Alexander had used cocaine conclusively showed that Alexander was the aggressor. 8 ¶18. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the State presented sufficient evidence that Byrd killed Alexander “without malice, in the heat of passion, but in a cruel or unusual manner, or by the use of a dangerous weapon, without authority of law, and not in necessary self-defense.” Johns testified that Byrd and Alexander had an altercation during which Byrd waved a knife around and then stabbed Alexander. Sufficient evidence existed to enable a rational jury to find that Byrd acted in the heat of passion or under a bona fide, but unfounded, belief that the stabbing was necessary to prevent great bodily harm. There was no evidence that Alexander had a weapon. In his police statement, Byrd did not claim to have acted in self-defense. He stated that Alexander had not threatened him and he was not in fear for his life. Byrd, at 5’7” and 170 pounds, was considerably larger than Alexander, who was 5’6” and 124 pounds. Clearly, the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational jury to find Byrd did not act in self-defense and to find him guilty of manslaughter.