315 So.3d 1066
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- On Feb. 27, 2016, Shaquil Sands shot into a group outside his brother Demario’s mother’s house; Richard Doby was killed and Dijon McCorkle was shot multiple times and later paralyzed.
- Witness testimony conflicted: some said a brief tussle preceded the shooting and hostilities had subsided; others said McCorkle pointed or reached toward his car and threatened Sands before shots were fired.
- Sands fled, later returned, and was arrested; a grand jury indicted him for first-degree murder and attempted murder.
- The jury convicted Sands of second-degree murder (Doby) and attempted murder (McCorkle); court imposed lengthy concurrent prison terms (forty years with ten suspended for murder; forty-nine years with nineteen suspended for attempted murder).
- On appeal Sands argued (1) the jury was improperly instructed on self-defense (several instruction-related complaints) and (2) the evidence was insufficient to overcome the Castle Doctrine/self-defense presumption.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no reversible error in the instructions and that the evidence—viewed in the light most favorable to the State—was sufficient to support the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sands) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jury Instruction No. 12 (self-defense) shifted burden to defendant by omitting that State must disprove self-defense | Instruction correctly informed jury self-defense could acquit; collective instructions sufficed | Instruction was deficient because it did not state the State had to prove absence of self-defense | Waived (no contemporaneous objection) and meritless; collective instructions properly informed jury; no plain error |
| Whether Jury Instruction No. 15 (quoting Fortenberry) improperly commented on evidence or misstated law | Instruction correctly stated precedent and was proper when read with others | Instruction was argumentative/commented on evidence and misstated law | Waived (no objection); not plain error—instruction accurately stated controlling precedent |
| Whether Jury Instruction No. 14 (proportionality) conflicted with statutory no-duty-to-retreat | Proportionality instruction is consistent with common-law rule and statute; jury may assess excessiveness | Instruction conflicts with §97-3-15(4) because statute omits proportionality language | No conflict: statute preserves no-duty-to-retreat but does not eliminate jury’s ability to find force excessive; instruction correctly stated law |
| Whether omission of phrase “and not in necessary self-defense” from murder elements (Counts I/II) was error | Omission harmless because separate self-defense instruction was given and no evidence Doby was shot in self-defense | Omission deprived jury of proper guidance and could prejudice verdict on murder count | Trial court reasonably refused adding phrase for Doby (no evidentiary foundation); instructions read together cured any omission; harmless error |
| Sufficiency of evidence—whether State failed to overcome Castle Doctrine/self-defense presumption | Evidence (fight had subsided, victims unarmed, shots to victims’ backs, Doby shot while fleeing) permitted jury to reject self-defense and convict | Castle Doctrine and self-defense should have acquitted or reduced culpability | Evidence sufficient: jury could rationally find presumption inapplicable or overcome it and convict of second-degree murder and attempted murder |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernard v. State, 288 So. 3d 301 (Miss. 2019) (similar self-defense instruction did not shift burden when read with the full charge)
- Harris v. State, 861 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 2003) (elements instruction may omit ‘not in necessary self-defense’ if separate self-defense instruction given)
- Long v. State, 52 Miss. 23 (Miss. 1876) (no duty to retreat but resistance must not be disproportionate to attack)
- Newell v. State, 49 So. 3d 66 (Miss. 2010) (statutory no-duty-to-retreat codifies longstanding Mississippi rule)
- Tate v. State, 784 So. 2d 208 (Miss. 2001) (whether force was excessive is a jury question)
- Thomas v. State, 277 So. 3d 532 (Miss. 2019) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)