310 So.3d 1206
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- On July 12, 2015, Gary Martin was shot and killed while seated in his pickup at an apartment complex; police recovered two shell casings and a bullet, and forensic testing linked the casings/bullet to the same (unrecovered) gun.
- Eyewitness Sidney Henderson testified he saw David Lacey standing at the driver’s-side window holding a gun, heard shots, heard Lacey say “come on with it,” and saw Lacey flee; Lacey’s latent print was recovered from the driver’s window.
- Lacey and co-defendant Demarco Felps were indicted for armed robbery and capital murder; the armed-robbery count against Lacey was later nolle prossed and the case proceeded on the capital-murder count.
- At trial the State requested and the court gave a lesser-included instruction of first-degree (deliberate-design) murder as to Lacey and a lesser-included armed-robbery instruction as to Felps; the jury acquitted Felps but convicted Lacey of first-degree murder.
- Lacey was sentenced to life imprisonment, filed post-trial motions (JNOV/new trial), and appealed raising (1) jury-instruction errors, (2) insufficiency/weight of the evidence, (3) limitation on peremptory challenges, and (4) cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lacey) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions — lesser-included first-degree, refusal of manslaughter, failure to define “deliberate design” sua sponte | Court erred by allowing State’s first-degree instruction, refusing manslaughter instruction, and failing to instruct on definition of deliberate design | Evidence supported first-degree instruction; no evidentiary support for manslaughter; neither party requested a deliberate-design definition so court had no sua sponte duty | Affirmed: first-degree instruction proper; manslaughter properly refused (no foundation); no error in not sua sponte defining deliberate design |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (directed verdict / JNOV) | Henderson’s testimony was unreliable/inconsistent and insufficient when compared to physical evidence to support conviction | Henderson’s eyewitness account plus Lacey’s latent print and forensic evidence permit reasonable inferences supporting guilt | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; denial of directed verdict/JNOV proper |
| Weight of the evidence / new trial | Verdict is against the overwhelming weight given witness credibility issues and contradictions | Jury resolved credibility and weighed evidence; no unconscionable injustice | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial |
| Peremptory challenges (sharing 12) & cumulative error | Two defendants should have received additional peremptory challenges under Rule 18.3; limiting them denied fair jury and merits reversal/cumulative error | Defense failed to raise Rule 18.3 at trial and did not exhaust allotted challenges; issue is procedurally barred and any error was not preserved | Affirmed: objection forfeited by failure to timely raise Rule 18.3; no reversible cumulative error |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 109 So. 3d 589 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for jury-instruction rulings)
- Bright v. State, 986 So. 2d 1042 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for granting lesser-included-offense instructions)
- Monroe v. State, 515 So. 2d 860 (Miss. 1987) (lesser-included jury-instruction test)
- Cooper v. State, 230 So. 3d 1071 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (deliberate-design may be formed instantaneously)
- Wilson v. State, 936 So. 2d 357 (Miss. 2006) (no duty for trial court to sua sponte give deliberate-design definition when not requested)
- Jerningham v. State, 910 So. 2d 748 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (JNOV/directed-verdict sufficiency principles)
- Sanford v. State, 247 So. 3d 1242 (Miss. 2018) (de novo review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Conner v. State, 632 So. 2d 1239 (Miss. 1993) (preservation rules; objections must be raised at trial)
- Hanson v. State, 592 So. 2d 114 (Miss. 1991) (rule that appellant must use all peremptory challenges to preserve jury-excusal complaints)