302 So.3d 707
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background:
- April 8, 2016: after an argument at a bonfire about Ashmore’s wife, Ashmore retrieved a shotgun and went home; Mason Howard later drove to Ashmore’s house with a friend.
- Howard (unarmed, larger in size) followed Ashmore through an unlocked/open front door into Ashmore’s living room; several people were present outside and at the door.
- Inside, Ashmore pointed a shotgun at Howard during a brief exchange; witnesses tried to calm the situation; Ashmore then shot Howard in the head, killing him.
- Ashmore told police Howard had threatened him and kicked in the door; phone records and physical inspection contradicted the threats and forcible-entry claim.
- A jury convicted Ashmore of first-degree (deliberate design) murder; the trial court denied JNOV and new-trial motions. Ashmore appealed asserting self-defense/Castle Doctrine; the court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / JNOV (self-defense) | Ashmore: he was inside his dwelling; Howard forcibly entered and threatened, so killing was justified under Castle Doctrine / self-defense | State: witnesses and physical evidence show no forcible entry or threats; Ashmore pointed and used a deadly weapon and shot intentionally | Denied — evidence, viewed for the State, was sufficient to disprove self-defense and to support deliberate-design murder |
| Jury instruction (Castle Doctrine) | Ashmore: appellate claim that Castle Doctrine applies to justify the shooting | State: Ashmore did not tender a Castle Doctrine instruction at trial | Court: Procedurally barred — defendant failed to request the Castle Doctrine instruction; trial court properly gave instructions Ashmore did propose |
| Motion for new trial (weight of the evidence) | Ashmore: verdict against overwhelming weight; he was defending his home | State: testimony, phone records, and lack of door damage favor prosecution; credibility disputes for jury | Denied — verdict was not so contrary to overwhelming evidence as to constitute unconscionable injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradford v. State, 102 So. 3d 312 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (standard for reviewing JNOV/sufficiency)
- Lewis v. Rula, 293 So. 3d 317 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (de novo standard for sufficiency review)
- Parvin v. State, 212 So. 3d 863 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (deliberate design may be inferred from circumstances, including weapon use)
- Craft v. State, 970 So. 2d 178 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (use of deadly weapon can support inference of deliberate design)
- Collins v. State, 594 So. 2d 29 (Miss. 1992) (failure to tender a proper jury instruction waives the claim on appeal)
- Lindsey v. State, 212 So. 3d 44 (Miss. 2017) (standard for appellate review of new-trial denials based on weight of evidence)