230 So. 3d 1071
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Randall Cooper shot and killed Virgil Harris after an altercation in a car; eyewitnesses (passenger Vur-sha Lovelace and back-seat passenger Tevin Harris) described an initial shot followed by multiple shots as Harris fell to the ground.
- Witnesses disputed whether Harris had displayed a gun in the car; a .40-caliber S&W was found in a nearby trash can and forensic testing tied casings/projectiles to that .40, while forensic evidence showed eight gunshot wounds on Harris.
- Cooper was tried on first-degree murder; the jury was instructed on first- and second-degree murder, heat-of-passion manslaughter, and self-defense.
- The jury convicted Cooper of first-degree murder and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment; Cooper appealed, challenging denial of a proposed self-defense instruction (D-3), and the granting of three State instructions (S-6B, S-3B, S-5B), and he also challenged sufficiency/weight of the evidence.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the refused instruction was not required on these facts, the given instructions (read as a whole) were legally adequate, and the evidence sufficed to support a first-degree murder conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Cooper's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refusal of D-3 (self-defense "after-developed facts" style instruction) | D-3 correctly stated self-defense law and should have been given (relied on Maye) | D-3 was unnecessary here; this was a routine self-defense claim without after-developed facts and standard instructions sufficiently covered self-defense | Refusal was not an abuse of discretion; D-3 not required on these facts (Crook controlling) |
| S-6B (heat-of-passion language) | Instruction could mislead jury into requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that killing was in heat of passion to avoid murder conviction | Instructions must be read together; State bore burden to disprove heat of passion beyond a reasonable doubt for murder, and S-6B was consistent with other instructions | No reversible error; Cooper accepted the instruction at trial and, read with others, it properly stated law |
| S-3B (definition/"but for an instant" deliberate design) | Language confusing, may fail to show intentional killing can be manslaughter, and "but for an instant" phrasing misleading | Instruction comports with Mississippi precedent: deliberate design can be formed moments before the act; jury also instructed about reductions to lesser crimes | No error; instruction consistent with Supreme Court precedent and Cooper waived objection at trial |
| S-5B (heat-of-passion manslaughter omission) | Omitted statutory language that manslaughter is "not in necessary self-defense," risking jury confusion | Jury was instructed elsewhere that failure to disprove self-defense required acquittal; instructions read as a whole prevented confusion | No reversible error; Cooper waived objection and instructions as a whole were adequate |
| Sufficiency/Weight of Evidence | Evidence insufficient to prove deliberate design; evidence supported self-defense or heat-of-passion manslaughter | Multiple witnesses described the sequence of shots (initial then multiple shots), no gun found on Harris at scene, forensic evidence tied casings to the .40 found in trash; reasonable juror could find deliberate design | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for a rational juror to find deliberate design; verdict not against overwhelming weight of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Maye v. State, 49 So.3d 1124 (Miss. 2010) (upheld giving an ‘‘after-developed facts’’ style self-defense instruction where facts required it)
- Crook v. State, 105 So.3d 353 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (distinguished Maye and held standard self-defense instructions may be adequate for routine self-defense claims)
- Robinson v. State, 434 So.2d 206 (Miss. 1983) (recommended self-defense instruction defining reasonable apprehension of imminent danger)
- Reddix v. State, 731 So.2d 591 (Miss. 1999) (held jury must be instructed to acquit if it finds the defendant acted in self-defense)
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (Jackson standard for sufficiency review and standard for weighing evidence on new-trial motions)