Everett Moore v. State of Mississippi, 247 So. 3d 1198

On Sept. 29, 2015 Norris Smith was found shot in his car after surveillance footage showed an encounter between Smith and Everett Moore in a parking lot; Smith’s vehicle then drove off the road into a building.
Multiple surveillance systems captured Moore near Smith’s vehicle, Moore following Smith’s car, and the vehicles in close proximity before Smith’s car ran the curb and stopped; witnesses heard gunshots and observed the wreck and shattered driver-side glass.
Moore turned himself in about 9–10 hours later and gave a recorded interview admitting his presence in the parking lot; police found cleaning supplies in the SUV seen in the footage and observed it had been cleaned.
A grand jury indicted Moore for murder; at trial the jury convicted him of second-degree murder and he received a 30-year MDOC sentence (40 years with 10 on post-release supervision); Moore appealed.
On appeal Moore raised several claims, but the Court addressed only whether the trial court erred in refusing his requested circumstantial-evidence jury instruction, concluding the refusal required reversal and a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Moore)	Held
Whether a circumstantial-evidence instruction was required	Evidence (video, fingerprints, casings, eyewitness identification of Moore fleeing, glass at scene) amounted to direct evidence, so instruction unnecessary	State lacked a confession or eyewitness to the actual shooting (the gravamen); evidence was circumstantial and Moore was entitled to instruction requiring exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence	Trial court abused discretion by refusing the instruction; reversal and remand for new trial
Whether second-degree murder instruction was unsupported	Instruction was proper given facts of a depraved-heart killing	Moore argued the State didn’t prove elements directly	Court did not reach issue (decision rested on instruction error)
Whether forensic pathologist improperly testified to another pathologist’s autopsy opinion	State relied on reviewing pathologist Dr. Davis who concurred with autopsy findings	Moore argued Davis testified to an opinion that was not his own	Court did not decide this claim (not dispositive)
Whether hearsay (victim’s wife statement) was admissible	Investigator testified to wife’s statement identifying Moore and asserting past problems	Moore objected as hearsay	Court did not resolve this claim on appeal (not dispositive)

McInnis v. State, 61 So.3d 872 (Miss. 2011) (instructions must be read as a whole and supported by evidence)
Stringfellow v. State, 595 So.2d 1320 (Miss. 1992) (circumstantial-evidence instruction should be given when prosecution has neither confession nor eyewitness to gravamen)
Burleson v. State, 166 So.3d 499 (Miss. 2015) (reiterating that when State lacks confession and eyewitness to gravamen, defendant is entitled to instruction requiring exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence)
Golden v. State, 860 So.2d 820 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (videotape capturing the criminal act can be direct evidence)
Haynes v. State, 744 So.2d 751 (Miss. 1999) (surveillance capturing the criminal act constituted direct evidence)
Mack v. State, 481 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1985) (historic articulation of circumstantial-evidence instruction standard)