Ford v. State
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 53
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Ford was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 18 years; he appeals claiming improper jury instructions.
- Night of May 17, 2008 in Shelby, Ford’s car was surrounded by six to seven men after a store confrontation with Gallion, and Ford retrieved a handgun as the group closed in.
- Video evidence is inconclusive about what was said or whether the gun jammed; testimony is conflicting on whether Ford aimed at Moore.
- The circuit court denied Ford’s requested justifiable-homicide instruction and gave a self-defense instruction focusing only on Ford’s risk from Moore alone, limiting the defense theories.
- Ford argued three theories of defense (robbery resistance, defense of his son, defense against the entire group); the majority remands for a new trial, and discusses Castle Doctrine and excusable-homicide issues; a dissent argues no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of justifiable-homicide instruction | Ford had a viable justifiable-homicide theory | State contends no error or that instruction was unnecessary | Reversible error; instruction should have been given |
| Failure to instruct on defense against the group and felony-resistance theories | Evidence supported three theories including robbery and defense of others | Instructions already covered self-defense; other theories not needed | Reversible error; remand for new trial to consider all theories |
| Potential Castle Doctrine instruction not given; Newell issue | Castle Doctrine may require an instruction under 97-3-15(3) | Newell issue not decided in favor of immediate instruction | Remand to consider whether Newell requires an instruction |
| Excusable-homicide instruction properly denied | Killing could be excusable if accidental | Act could not be accidental if intended | Correct to deny; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Banyard v. State, 47 So.3d 676 (Miss.2010) (reversible error for denial of duress instruction; merits for jury to weigh)
- Wood v. State, 33 So.2d 286 (Miss.1903) (self-defense instruction cannot narrow focus to individual attacker when group threat exists)
- Chinn v. State, 958 So.2d 1223 (Miss.2007) (fundamental right to have theory presented to jury)
- Montana v. State, 822 So.2d 954 (Miss.2002) (excusable-homicide doctrine; intentional act cannot be excused as accident)
- Robinson v. State, 434 So.2d 206 (Miss.1983) (Robinson instruction guidance for self-defense)
- Dillon v. State, 18 So.2d 457 (Miss.1944) (apparent danger required for justifiable self-defense; objective reasonableness)
- Scott v. State, 34 So.2d 718 (Miss.1948) (definition of apparent danger in self-defense)
- Newell v. State, 49 So.3d 66 (Miss.2010) (Castle Doctrine considerations on remand)