Opinion ID: 1591871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Deliberate Design

Text: ¶ 17. Wilson was convicted for Lisa's murder under Miss Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(a) which provides 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 of any human being. This Court has held that malice aforethought, premeditated design and deliberate design all mean the same thing. Hawthorne, 835 So.2d at 19. By definition, malice aforethought and deliberate design are synonymous. Id. This Court has also acknowledged that deliberate design connotes an intent to kill. Id. That being said, deliberate indicates a full awareness of what one is doing and generally implies careful and unhurried consideration of the consequences. Jones v. State, 710 So.2d 870, 877 (Miss.1998). Design means to calculate, plan or contemplate. Id. However, deliberate design to kill a person may be formed quickly and perhaps only moments before the act. Id. Deliberate design, as a matter of law, may be inferred through the intentional use of any instrument which based on its manner of use, is calculated to produce death or serious bodily injury. Id. at 878; Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d 793, 802 (Miss.1984). ¶ 18. In the present case, Wilson fought with Lisa all day. The police were called to interrupt two domestic disputes previous to the final attack. Wilson broke the door with his bare fists and proceeded to beat Lisa in the face until she was knocked to the floor. Only then did Wilson grab a knife and repeatedly stab and slash Lisa. He delivered three fatal blows while fighting off her son and other household members. This evidence points directly to a considered plan, deliberately executed, with the purpose of killing Lisa. Given these facts and the applicable standard of review, we cannot agree there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict, or to let it stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. Therefore, this argument is without merit.