90 So. 3d 97
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Taylor appeals convictions and consecutive sentences for murder, four counts of aggravated assault, and shooting into an occupied dwelling arising from a porch shooting in Jackson, Mississippi that killed Cordarel Brown and injured four others.
- He was indicted with Bennett, Johnson, and Warren; the jury convicted him on all counts except one aggravated assault.
- The circuit court denied several defense jury instructions, admitted and excluded certain evidence, and read the indictment to the jury.
- The sentences were life for murder, twenty years on three aggravated assaults, and ten years for shooting into an occupied dwelling, all consecutive.
- Evidence included eyewitness testimony that Taylor returned with Bennett and observed the shooting, and that he threatened the victims beforehand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err by denying Taylor's aiding-and-abetting instruction D-16? | Taylor argues D-16 correctly states the required intent. | State contends D-16 was improper and the Milano/S-12 framework covered the issue. | No reversible error; Milano/S-12 adequately instructed aiding and abetting. |
| Was Taylor entitled to an instruction defining deliberate design (D-18)? | D-18 was necessary to define terms not adequately covered. | Catchings supports that elements were sufficiently covered elsewhere. | No error; Catchings requires no extra definition where elements are covered. |
| Did the State's aiding-and-abetting instruction S-7C cause error given S-12? | S-7C was confusing and repetitive. | No reversible error; repetition not inherently misleading. | Harmless error; no reversible effect. |
| Was the flight instruction S-10 properly admitted? | Flight was unexplained and probative of guilt. | Flight had no valid explanation and should be excluded. | Proper exercise of discretion; no error. |
| Should the circumstantial-evidence instruction D-14 have been given? | No eyewitness direct evidence; circumstantial instruction required. | Direct eyewitness testimony existed; instruction not required. | Not required; direct evidence established intent and acts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sneed v. State, 31 So.3d 33 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (review of aiding-and-abetting instructions; no reversible error here)
- Milano v. State, 790 So.2d 179 (Miss.2001) (model aiding-and-abetting instruction; adopted in Mississippi)
- Catchings v. State, 684 So.2d 591 (Miss.1996) (definition of deliberate design; elements sufficed by other instructions)
- Brock v. State, 530 So.2d 146 (Miss.1988) (flight instruction proper where defendant's version lacks corroboration)
- Shaw v. State, 915 So.2d 442 (Miss.2005) (flight evidence admissible under Rule 404(b) with Rule 403 balancing)
- Manning v. State, 735 So.2d 323 (Miss.1999) (circumstantial-evidence instruction when all proof is circumstantial)