309 So.3d 30
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Around 6:00 a.m. on May 16, 2015, two masked men forced Dr. Lawrence Goldstein from his driveway at gunpoint, took firearms and cash, and forced him to drive to an ATM; Goldstein later shot and killed one assailant (Edwin Robinson) and the other fled in an SUV.
- Surveillance from a nearby church showed a person running and a tan SUV with a rear taillight out leaving the lot; the victim, the victim’s neighbor, the victim’s family member (Robinson’s mother), and Kennedy’s girlfriend (Jacqueline Funchess) identified the SUV and/or the person in the surveillance images as Kennedy.
- Kennedy was Robinson’s roommate and was seen with a bandaged arm the morning after; investigators found matching gloves and a glass-repair receipt in Kennedy’s SUV and evidence of a rear window replacement the same day.
- Kennedy gave varying accounts of his whereabouts; Funchess testified Kennedy said he had been at the scene and was shot at when returning to pick up Robinson; Kennedy spent an unusual amount of cash shortly after the incident.
- A Hinds County jury convicted Kennedy of armed robbery, attempted kidnapping, and burglary; Kennedy requested circumstantial-evidence jury instructions (D-12, D-13), which the trial court refused and instead gave a general instruction (S-8).
- On appeal Kennedy argued the evidence was wholly circumstantial and he was entitled to the two-theory/circumstantial-evidence instructions; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the record contained direct evidence sufficient to justify refusal of the requested instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing defense circumstantial-evidence instructions (D-12, D-13) | State: Evidence included eyewitness testimony and identifications (surveillance/photo IDs and victim/neighborhood/family testimony), so the case was not purely circumstantial and refusal was proper | Kennedy: No confession or eyewitness positively identified him committing the crimes; evidence was wholly circumstantial, entitling him to two-theory/circumstantial instructions | Court: Refusal proper — record contained direct evidence (victim and witnesses identified the person/SUV in surveillance and Kennedy made statements placing himself at the scene), so circumstantial instructions were not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Burleson v. State, 166 So. 3d 499 (Miss. 2015) (distinguishes direct evidence from circumstantial evidence; direct evidence must directly implicate the accused)
- McInnis v. State, 61 So. 3d 872 (Miss. 2011) (circumstantial-evidence instruction requires proof to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- Johnson v. State, 999 So. 2d 360 (Miss. 2008) (two-theory instruction only when evidence is entirely circumstantial and two reasonable hypotheses exist)
- Price v. State, 749 So. 2d 1188 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (defendant’s admission of being at the scene can be an admission of a significant element, obviating a circumstantial-instruction requirement)
- Stringfellow v. State, 595 So. 2d 1320 (Miss. 1992) (rule that circumstantial-evidence instruction is required only when no eyewitness or confession supports the prosecution)
- Evans v. State, 119 So. 3d 1084 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (explains two-theory instruction framework)