Rodise Jenkins v. State of Mississippi
253 So. 3d 349
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- Jenkins and victim Anthony Wheaton were in the same home after a tense conversation about Jenkins’s ex-wife; Jenkins left, retrieved a gun from his truck, returned, fired multiple shots, and killed Wheaton. Jenkins fled and was arrested.\
- Jenkins was tried for murder by deliberate design and convicted; sentenced to life imprisonment.\
- At trial Jenkins sought manslaughter instructions (heat of passion), a deadly-force/self-defense instruction was given by the court, and Jenkins sought admission of Wheaton’s prior convictions to support a violent character/self-defense theory.\
- The trial court refused Jenkins’s manslaughter instructions, admitted a deadly-force instruction (S-9), and excluded Wheaton’s prior-conviction records as irrelevant to Jenkins’s state of mind/knowledge.\
- On appeal Jenkins challenged (1) refusal of manslaughter instructions, (2) the S-9 deadly-force instruction, (3) exclusion of victim’s prior convictions, and (4) alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request an imperfect-self-defense manslaughter instruction.\
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, rejecting Jenkins’s claims on the merits except declining to decide ineffective-assistance on the record and dismissing that claim without prejudice for post-conviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Jenkins’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing manslaughter (heat-of-passion) instructions | Evidence (Turner’s description of Jenkins as angry) supported heat-of-passion/manslaughter as lesser-included offense | No evidentiary foundation: Jenkins’s own testimony described fear/self-defense, there was a cooling-off period, and no reasonable jury could find only manslaughter | Instruction refusal affirmed; no manslaughter instruction warranted |
| Whether jury instruction S-9 (deadly-force "acts at his peril") was erroneous | Language dilutes self-defense and is legally incorrect; reversible error | Jenkins failed to preserve specific objection; other correct self-defense instructions were given; no plain error | No plain error; instruction did not produce manifest injustice |
| Whether exclusion of Wheaton’s prior convictions was erroneous | Prior convictions showed violent nature and supported Jenkins’s self-defense claim | Jenkins lacked personal knowledge of those convictions; evidence irrelevant to his state of mind; procedural failures in offering them | Exclusion affirmed; convictions irrelevant to Jenkins’s decision and not properly introduced |
| Whether Jenkins received ineffective assistance for not requesting imperfect-self-defense manslaughter instruction | Counsel’s failure precluded a viable defense instruction and prejudiced outcome | Record does not affirmatively show constitutionally deficient performance; claim not adequately supported on direct appeal | Claim dismissed without prejudice; may pursue post-conviction relief (record inadequate for direct review) |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 18 So. 3d 842 (discussing trial court discretion on jury instructions) (instruction standard)\
- Newell v. State, 49 So. 3d 66 (reading instructions as a whole) (instruction review principle)\
- Harper v. State, 478 So. 2d 1017 (lesser-included instruction standard) (when manslaughter instruction may be refused)\
- White v. State, 842 So. 2d 565 (lesser-included offense authorization) (rational-jury standard)\
- Ruffin v. State, 444 So. 2d 839 (deny manslaughter only where evidence supports murder only) (lesser-included instruction rule)\
- Sanders v. State, 103 So. 3d 775 (heat-of-passion instruction not warranted after cooling-off period) (cooling-off precedent)\
- Watson v. State, 483 So. 2d 1326 (objection specificity for instructions) (preservation rule)\
- Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 580 (criticizing "acts at his peril" language) (deadly-force instruction language)\
- Flowers v. State, 473 So. 2d 164 (importance of correct instructions in close cases) (instructional error context)\
- Rodgers v. State, 166 So. 3d 537 (use of flawed language not per se reversible) (plain-error analysis)\
- Mingo v. State, 944 So. 2d 18 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings) (evidence admission standard)\
- Heidel v. State, 587 So. 2d 835 (admission of victim’s violent-character evidence where defendant had personal knowledge) (distinguishing facts)\
- Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776 (limits of deciding ineffective-assistance on direct appeal) (standard for direct-review IAC claims)