204 So. 3d 353
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Nov. 14, 2013 Malcolm Husband and his 12-year-old stepson visited Husband’s aunt/uncle’s duplex; a dispute erupted between Husband and neighbor Forester Crenshaw.
- Crenshaw retrieved a handgun and stood in the open door of Husband’s car, allegedly preventing Husband from leaving.
- Husband grabbed a gun from his car and fired; Crenshaw returned fire but later died of a single gunshot wound to the back.
- Husband was indicted for heat-of-passion manslaughter, tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years (10 suspended), fines, and restitution.
- At trial the State requested and the court gave Jury Instruction 7 (a castle-doctrine instruction) applying a statutory rebuttable-presumption of justified defensive force to the victim (Crenshaw), not the defendant.
- Husband appealed, arguing the castle instruction impermissibly shifted the State’s burden; the Court of Appeals found reversible plain error and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving a castle-doctrine jury instruction applying the statutory presumption to the victim was permissible | Instruction was proper and applicable to facts; preserved at trial | Instruction improperly created a rebuttable presumption favoring the victim and shifted burden from State to defendant | Reversed — instruction was plain, clear error and prejudicial; warranted new trial |
| Preservation / waiver of objection to the instruction | Husband’s trial objection (that victim was not a resident) preserved issue | On appeal Husband argued a different ground (burden-shifting), so State asserted waiver | Court found appellate claim procedurally barred but nonetheless reviewed for plain error and reversed on that basis |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence for manslaughter verdict | Evidence (altercation, gun used, victim shot in back while retreating) supported heat-of-passion manslaughter | Husband contended self-defense / castle doctrine would justify acquittal | Court held that, had jury been properly instructed, the State nonetheless presented sufficient credible evidence to support a manslaughter verdict; issue rendered moot by remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (Due Process prohibits jury presumptions that relieve State of burden to prove every element beyond reasonable doubt)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (mandatory presumption in jury instruction can violate due process)
- Williams v. State, 111 So. 3d 620 (Miss. 2013) (instruction creating mandatory presumption allowing conviction on presumption rather than proof is reversible error)
- Sloan v. State, 368 So. 2d 228 (Miss. 1979) (State retains burden to prove defendant not acting in self-defense)
- State v. Abdi, 248 P.3d 209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (trial court erred by giving castle-doctrine instruction applying presumption to victim; it shifted burden)
- Harris v. State, 861 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 2003) (specific objection required at trial to preserve jury-instruction issue on appeal)