Cody v. State
449 S.W.3d 712
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Andrew J. Cody shot and killed Lee Britton after learning his five‑year‑old daughter accused Britton of sexual molestation; Cody admitted he intended to confront and beat Britton but shot him after Britton allegedly called the child a liar.
- Cody entered Britton’s home twice that day, retrieved a shotgun, waited for Britton, took steps to avoid leaving evidence (shoe coverings), and fired a headshot when Britton spoke to him.
- Cody was charged with first‑degree murder and aggravated residential burglary; the jury acquitted him of burglary and convicted him of the lesser‑included offense of second‑degree murder; he received a 20‑year sentence.
- Cody sought a manslaughter jury instruction based on extreme emotional disturbance and later moved for a new trial claiming the prosecutor’s facial expressions constituted prejudicial "reverse vouching."
- The trial court denied the manslaughter instruction and denied the new‑trial motion after a hearing; Cody appealed both rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Cody's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a manslaughter (extreme emotional disturbance) instruction was required | Cody: Britton’s admission history and his statement calling the child a liar provoked an irresistible passion justifying the instruction | State: No adequate provocation—victim was unarmed, made verbal taunts only, so no rational basis for the instruction | Court: Affirmed trial court; no provocation sufficient to warrant manslaughter instruction |
| Whether prosecutor’s facial expressions during trial warranted a new trial for prejudice (reverse vouching) | Cody: Prosecutor’s grinning, laughing, and eye‑rolling improperly commented on defense credibility and distracted jurors | State: No evidence jurors were distracted or influenced; trial court observed no prejudice | Court: Affirmed trial court; no showing of juror prejudice and trial court’s credibility findings were not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Pollard v. State, 336 S.W.3d 866 (Ark. 2009) (mere threats or unaccompanied menaces by an unarmed person do not support manslaughter instruction)
- Boyle v. State, 214 S.W.3d 250 (Ark. 2005) (standards for extreme‑emotional‑disturbance manslaughter instruction)
- Kail v. State, 14 S.W.3d 878 (Ark. 2000) (provocation categories relevant to manslaughter instruction)
- Rainey v. State, 837 S.W.2d 453 (Ark. 1992) (mere threats by an unarmed person generally insufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter)
- Morris v. State, 94 S.W.3d 913 (Ark. 2003) (reversible error to refuse lesser‑included instruction if slightest evidence supports it)
- Davis v. State, 2011 Ark. 433 (Ark. 2011) (appellate review of trial court’s discretion on instructions)
- Smart v. State, 104 S.W.3d 386 (Ark. 2003) (trial court’s denial of new trial reviewed for manifest abuse of discretion)
- Henderson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 374 (Ark. 2002) (same standard for new‑trial review)
- Campbell v. State, 432 S.W.3d 673 (Ark. App. 2014) (trial court’s factual findings on new‑trial motions will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous)
- Dail v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 184 (Ark. App. 2013) (prejudice must be shown to obtain new trial for conduct affecting jury)