Childs v. State, 133 So. 3d 348

Verina Childs was convicted of murdering her husband on August 4, 2011 after a four-day jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment in MDOC.
Post-conviction, Childs moved for a new trial, which was denied, and she appeals to the Oktibbeha County Circuit Court.
Doug Childs’s body was found November 22, 2009 with a single gunshot wound; the firearm was a Marlin 30/30 owned by Verina.
Verina carried the 30/30 that morning, separated from Doug; she texted she was returning home, later unloading the rifle and preparing to clean.
Investigators seized the rifle and clothing; Verina had claimed she never fired the rifle, and other guns in the house were loaded.
Verina did not testify; the only witness for her defense was her son.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Destruction of evidence violated due process	Childs argues Preservation Law was violated by destruction.	State contends no violation; evidence not exculpatory and no applicable evidence destroyed.	No due-process violation; first prong not satisfied.
Right to alternative defenses rejected without instruction	Childs deserved an accident theory jury instruction.	No basis in evidence for an accident instruction.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; instruction properly denied.
Sufficiency of proof of deliberate-design murder	Circumstantial evidence cannot support deliberate-design murder.	High-powered rifle use can imply deliberate design; circumstantial proof suffices.	Deliberate-design murder proven; affirmed.

Murray v. State, 849 So.2d 1281 (Miss. 2003) (three-prong test for destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (due-process limits on destruction of evidence)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (necessity of bad-faith destruction for due-process violation)
McGrone, 798 So.2d 519 (Miss. 2001) (example of apparently exculpatory evidence)
Tolbert v. State, 511 So.2d 1368 (Miss. 1987) (mere speculation of defense-supporting evidence is insufficient)
Montana v. State, 822 So.2d 954 (Miss. 2002) (evidence must have actual basis in order to be exculpatory)
Jones v. State, 710 So.2d 870 (Miss. 1998) (deliberate design may be inferred from instrumentality)
Wilson v. State, 936 So.2d 357 (Miss. 2006) (circumstantial-proof standards for deliberate-design murder)
Parker v. State, 30 So.3d 1222 (Miss. 2010) (definition and elements of deliberate-design murder)
Thomas v. State, 42 So.3d 528 (Miss. 2010) (circumstantial evidence standard to exclude innocence)