Opinion ID: 1878419
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to grant a directed verdict.

Text: ¶ 13. Jackson argues that the trial judge erred by refusing to grant a directed verdict. He asserts that he shot the victim in self defense and that he acted in the heat of passion. He contends that the shooting did not take place with malice aforethought and with cool deliberation. ¶ 14. A motion for directed verdict challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993). In Wetz v. State 503 So.2d 803, 808 (Miss.1987), this Court reviewed the denial of a murder defendant's motion for directed verdict and stated: [W]e must, with respect to each element of the offense, consider all of the evidence not just the evidence which supports the case for the prosecutionin the light most favorable to the verdict. The credible evidence which is consistent with the guilt must be accepted as true. The prosecution must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Matters regarding the weight and credibility to be accorded the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. We may reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the elements of the offense charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and fairminded jurors could only find the accused not guilty. (citations omitted). ¶ 15. When considering whether or not the verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, this Court must accept as true all the evidence which supports the State's position, together with all inferences reasonably flowing therefrom, in the light most favorable to the State's theory of the case. Britt v. State, 520 So.2d 1377, 1379 (Miss.1988). ¶ 16. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(a) defines murder as [t]he killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means or in any manner ... [w]hen done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being.... Jackson admitted that he shot the victim. What he contests is whether he did so with deliberate design. ¶ 17. Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, this Court finds no merit to Jackson's argument. There was ample evidence of Jackson's deliberate design to kill the victim. Jackson stated that he was going to burn [the victim's] ass. He then left for his house to retrieve a gun; ran his car off the road in the process; got a ride from someone else for the remainder of the trip to his house; once there, retrieved a gun; walked for at least ten minutes through the woods to return to the store; stood outside the store window; shouted, MF, I'm fixing to kill you; and then shot and killed the victim. ¶ 18. Jackson's argument that the killing was in self-defense is without merit since he was the aggressor, at least at the point of his return to the store. Also, the self-defense argument is refuted by Branning, the eyewitness who was in the store at the time of the shooting. Branning stated unequivocally that the victim did not reach for a gun. He did not have time. ¶ 19. Jackson further argues that the killing occurred in the heat of passion. The facts do not support this argument. Jackson testified that he was enraged by the altercation with the victim after which he was ejected from the store. However, Jackson had ample time to temper his anger on the trip home to retrieve the gun and during his walk back to the store. ¶ 20. Considering the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict, this Court finds that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court appropriately denied Jackson's motion for directed verdict.