Eric Hodges a/k/a Pinky v. State of Mississippi;, 285 So.3d 711

Eric Hodges (aka “Pinky”) owned six pit bulls; two men (Derrick Sanders and David Glass) were found dead or fatally injured near Hodges’s property in 2014 with similar mutilations. Glass, found alive, told investigators he believed the dogs were “Pinky’s.”
Law enforcement observed six dogs at Hodges’s home; three were loose and three were chained and agitated. All six dogs were later euthanized; DNA testing linked at least one dog hair to Hodges’s dogs with respect to Sanders.
Hodges was indicted under Miss. Code § 97-3-45 (owner of a mischievous/dangerous animal causing death) on two counts of manslaughter, tried by jury, convicted on both counts, and sentenced to concurrent terms of 20 years (5 suspended, 15 to serve).
On appeal Hodges argued (1) the jury instructions omitted an essential element (owner’s knowledge of the dogs’ dangerous propensity), (2) insufficiency/weight-of-the-evidence, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial based on plain error: the substantive jury instructions did not require a finding that Hodges knew of his dogs’ dangerous propensity. The court nonetheless held the State’s evidence would have been sufficient if the jury had been properly instructed and declined to reach the ineffective-assistance claim as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury-instruction omission: whether jury was instructed on owner’s knowledge of animal’s dangerous propensity	Hodges: jury instructions omitted essential element that owner knew of dogs’ violent propensity	State: instructions, read aloud and as a whole, conveyed the knowledge element; issue waived by failure to object	Reversed and remanded for plain error; court found instructions substituted “knowing propensity to go at large” for required “knowing propensity for mischievousness/dangerousness”
Sufficiency/weight of evidence	Hodges: State failed to prove he knew dogs were dangerous and victims took reasonable precautions	State: testimony (agitated/chained dogs, prior complaints, Glass’s ID of dogs, DNA linkage) sufficed	Court held that, viewed favorably to prosecution, evidence would support convictions if jury had been properly instructed; did not render judgment in Hodges’s favor
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Hodges: trial counsel ineffective (e.g., failed to object/request instructions)	State: procedural posture moot because verdict reversed on instructional error	Court declined to address ineffective-assistance claim as moot following reversal/remand

Harrell v. State, 134 So. 3d 266 (Miss. 2014) (failure to instruct jury as to elements of crime is reversible per se)
Bolton v. State, 113 So. 3d 542 (Miss. 2013) (plain error where jury instruction omitted an essential element)
Hunter v. State, 684 So. 2d 625 (Miss. 1996) (State must ensure jury is properly instructed on each element)
Newell v. State, 175 So. 3d 1260 (Miss. 2015) (appellate courts should address sufficiency of evidence even when reversing for other errors)
Chesney v. State, 165 So. 3d 498 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (trial court’s failure to instruct on elements can be plain error)
Caffie v. State, 269 So. 3d 1203 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (preservation rule for instruction objections and reading instructions as a whole)
Smith v. State, 275 So. 3d 100 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and weight of the evidence)
Gillett v. State, 56 So. 3d 469 (Miss. 2010) (deference to jury on credibility and weight of testimony)