Derrick A. Dixon v. State of Arkansas, 581 S.W.3d 505

Dixon was indicted for first-degree murder (Cordario Floyd) and first-degree battery (Ja Terrance Hamilton) for shootings on Sept. 2, 2015; firearm- and prior-felony enhancements were sought; jury trial Feb. 27–28, 2018.
Eyewitnesses (Hamilton and Antonio Critton) testified Dixon left a porch area and then returned and shot Floyd in the head; Hamilton testified Dixon then shot him twice (neck and back) as Hamilton fled; Hamilton required surgery and was hospitalized three days.
Latoya Smith (Dixon’s then-girlfriend) picked Dixon up after the shootings; she testified Dixon was agitated, admitted shooting someone, threatened more violence, and talked about needing more bullets.
Medical examiner testified Floyd’s fatal head wound lacked stippling, indicating the shot was fired from more than three feet away.
Dixon requested jury instructions on lesser-included offenses (second-degree murder, manslaughter based on extreme emotional disturbance, and second-degree battery); the trial court denied them and the jury convicted on all counts; Dixon appealed.
The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the instruction rulings for abuse of discretion and, after Rule 4-3(i) review of a life sentence, affirmed the convictions.

Issue	State's Argument	Dixon's Argument	Held
Whether second-degree murder instruction (knowingly/indifference) should be given	No rational basis: eyewitnesses showed an unprovoked, purposeful killing supporting 1st-degree only	Smith’s post-shooting statements and circumstantial items (victim’s gun, scale) supply some evidence of lesser mens rea	Affirmed denial — no rational basis for second-degree instruction
Whether extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter instruction should be given	Dixon’s statements to Smith occurred after the killing and do not show his mental state at the time of the shooting	Post-shooting agitation, admissions, and threats show extreme emotional disturbance and reasonable excuse	Affirmed denial — post-offense statements insufficient to support manslaughter instruction
Whether second-degree battery instruction (lesser intent) should be given for Hamilton’s wounds	Injuries (two gunshots, surgery, bullet retained, hospitalization) constituted serious physical injury and show intent to cause serious injury — supports 1st-degree battery only	Wounds were not sufficiently serious; jury should have second-degree option	Affirmed denial — evidence supports serious physical injury and 1st-degree battery intent

Bruner v. State, 426 S.W.3d 386 (Ark. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jury-instruction rulings)
Collins v. State, 571 S.W.3d 479 (Ark. 2019) (definition and threshold for abuse of discretion)
Friar v. State, 2016 Ark. 245 (Ark. 2016) (lesser-included instruction reversible if even the slightest evidence supports it)
Rounsaville v. State, 273 S.W.3d 486 (Ark. 2008) (appellate review limited to instructions actually proffered)