Opinion ID: 1709998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: the appellant was convicted of murder without the court's having properly instructed the jury.

Text: Miller maintains that the lower court's refusal of two of his proposed jury instructions, D-9 and D-10, was reversible error. Both D-9 and D-10 were excusable homicide instructions which the lower court refused, stating that Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-17, the statute dealing with excusable homicide, does not extend to homicides committed during the course of an unlawful act or to homicides committed with a dangerous weapon. Miller argues that although a dangerous weapon was involved in this case, under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-17, the jury could have still found the shooting to be excusable homicide if they found Mary's death was the result of accident or misfortune. The State argues that, pursuant to settled case law, excusable homicide does not extend to homicides committed with a deadly weapon. The State cites three cases in which this Court has stated that the statute ... defining excusable homicide does not extend to homicide committed in the course of an unlawful act nor to homicide committed with a deadly weapon. Hailes v. State, 315 So.2d 917, 918 (Miss. 1975) (citing Powell v. State, 279 So.2d 161 (Miss. 1973)). See also Wood v. State, 64 Miss. 761, 2 So. 247 (1887). While these cases seem to say that a homicide can never be excusable when a gun, or other dangerous weapon, is used, that is not the law. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-17 provides for three scenarios in which a homicide may be excusable: The killing of any human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be excusable: (a) When committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent; (b) When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation; (c) When committed upon any sudden combat, without undue advantage being taken, and without any dangerous weapon being used, and not done in a cruel or unusual manner. Case law indicates that these three sections need not be taken as a whole, but may be read and applied separately. In the cases cited by the State, the facts did not fit any of the three excuses. All three of those cases involved an unlawful act or sudden combat coupled with the use of a dangerous weapon and therefore the homicides could not be excusable and an accident instruction was not appropriate. In Hailes the evidence showed that the defendant shot and killed her companion while in the commission of an unlawful act. In Powell, the defendant, after locating his wife at a tavern with another man, returned to his car and got a pistol which he placed in his pocket. Powell then went to confront his wife and the man she was with. Powell twice hit his wife's companion in the head with the gun, the second time the gun fired killing his wife's companion. Wood was an appeal from an assault conviction, where the victim was stabbed with a knife during a sudden combat situation. In each of these cases the Court held that the applicable excusable homicide statute did not extend to homicides committed with a dangerous weapon. However, if the facts of each case are taken into account, it is apparent that it was not merely the use of a dangerous weapon that precluded the granting of an excusable homicide instruction, but rather such an instruction was not warranted because the homicide occurred with a dangerous weapon during sudden combat or during the commission of an unlawful act. The clear language of the statute and its application by this Court shows that the only time a homicide cannot be excusable when a dangerous weapon is used is when it takes place during sudden combat. This Court has never held an accident or misfortune instruction to be improper when a dangerous weapon was used and there was evidence that the homicide was committed while the defendant was engaged in lawful conduct, exhibiting usual and ordinary caution, and there was no unlawful intent. Whether or not a killing was the result of accident of misfortune is a question for the jury to decide after proper instruction. Day v. State, 589 So.2d 637, 643 (Miss. 1991). There are no Mississippi cases precisely on point, but one which is similar factually to the case sub judice is Taylor v. State, 597 So.2d 192 (Miss. 1992). In that case Taylor and his former girlfriend, Linda Johnson, were in Taylor's trailer arguing. Taylor maintained that Johnson went for a gun Taylor kept under the cushions of his couch. The two struggled over the gun and as Taylor lost his balance and fell the gun discharged shooting Johnson in the head, killing her. Taylor never deviated from his contention that the killing was an accident. The State was granted two jury instructions dealing with self-defense, which Taylor never asserted. Taylor was found guilty of murder. This Court reversed stating: Taylor's theory of defense throughout was one of accident or excusable homicide. See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-17(b) (Supp. 1987). The instruction, considered by itself, deflects the jury's attention from accident as the defense. One cannot read the instruction without forming the opinion that the principal defense to be considered is self-defense. Taylor, 597 So.2d at 197. In Scott v. State, 446 So.2d 580 (Miss. 1984), Scott was convicted of murder for the shooting death of W.C. Dub Turner. Scott was in Turner's apartment helping him repair his stereo when Turner pulled out a gun and fired it twice in Scott's direction. Scott claimed that he and Turner scuffled and the gun discharged two more times. At trial, jury instruction S-1 listed only subsection (c) of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-17. This Court reversed stating: The instruction completely fails to mention accident, misfortune, the heat of passion, or any sudden and sufficient provocation. Although Instruction D-4 did mention those factors, it does not remedy the defect in S-1. This is so because S-1 is conclusive in nature and therefore in hopeless conflict with an instruction like D-4 which list other occasion in which a homicide may be excusable. Scott, 446 So.2d at 583. In Nicolaou v. State, 534 So.2d 168 (Miss. 1988), this Court stated, in dicta, A killing with a deadly weapon may be susceptible of clear explanation by the accused or eyewitnesses as an accident, or justified as having been committed by the accused acting in lawful self-defense, or mitigated manslaughter. When no such proof is forthcoming the jury is warranted in finding the accused guilty of murder. Id. at 172 (emphasis added). Two recent cases dealing with the defense of accident or misfortune also seem to indicate that it takes something more than just a killing done with a deadly weapon before a homicide may not be found to be excusable under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-17. In Thibodeaux v. State, 652 So.2d 153 (Miss. 1995), the defendant argued that while headlighting deer his gun accidentally discharged killing a game warden. This Court held that even if the gun fired accidentally, the homicide was not excusable under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-17 because: neither subsection (a) nor (c) of the cited statute is available to Thibodeaux since he was in the process of headlighting deer, an unlawful activity under (a), and in possession of a firearm, a dangerous weapon under (c). The statute defining excusable homicide does not extend to homicide committed in the course of an unlawful act nor to homicide committed with a deadly weapon. Neither is heat of passion suggested or argued by Thibodeaux. Thus, his contention that the application of Weathersby Rule results in a finding that he was only guilty of an accidental, excusable homicide is unsupported. Thibodeaux, 652 So.2d at 167 (citations omitted). In Nicholson ex rel. Gollott v. State, 672 So.2d 744 (Miss. 1996), this Court held that Gollot, who was convicted of manslaughter for fatally shooting his ex-wife, Diane, was not entitled to an accident instruction. Gollot claimed that he accidentally killed Diane while he was attempting suicide. The Court held that suicide is unlawful at common law and therefore, under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-3(a), the killing could not be excusable. This Court made no issue of the fact that a dangerous weapon was used. It is clear from a reading of these cases that this Court intends that a defendant have the right to have the jury instructed on excusable homicide in certain cases even when a dangerous weapon was involved. If not there could never be such a thing as an accidental shooting or a hunting accident. If the testimony is looked to in the light most favorable to Miller, then an excusable homicide instruction was appropriate since under Miller's version of the events he and Mary were struggling over the gun when it discharged, killing her. This is not a sudden combat situation such as contemplated by the legislature under subsection (c) nor did the shooting happen during the commission of an unlawful act which would exclude subsection (a). Miller should have been allowed an instruction on his defense of accident or misfortune. Even though the trial court allowed jury instruction D-12, this was not sufficient. D-12 merely informed the jury that Miller could raise the defense of accident or misfortune. The jury was not instructed on what such a defense entailed. The lower court erred in refusing proposed instruction D-9 which read: The killing of a human being is an excusable homicide if the defendant's act which caused the death of ____ was a result of an accident and misfortune in doing a lawful act by lawful means with usual and ordinary caution and without unlawful intent. If ____ death was caused by the discharge of the pistol accidentally while in the possession of the defendant and that the defendant used usual and ordinary caution and had no lawful intent, then the homicide is excusable. If you do find that the shooting was accidental and thus excusable, then you shall find for the defendant and return a verdict of NOT GUILTY. Although D-9 could have been better written by setting out all three subsections under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-3 or by applying the applicable facts, the point remains that Miller was entitled to an accident instruction. However, proposed jury instruction D-10 was a confusing self-defense/accident instruction and it cannot be said that the lower court erred in refusing it. This issue is meritorious and this case is reversed because of the lower court's failure to grant Miller an instruction on his defense of accident.