Taylor v. State, 137 So. 3d 283

On Jan. 1–2, 2011, Bernard Taylor (16) fired multiple shots into a car carrying five people, wounding three. Taylor was indicted on three counts of aggravated assault with a five-year firearms enhancement under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-37-37.
Victims identified Taylor as the shooter; shell casings indicated shots from at least two different guns. Taylor admitted shooting but claimed self-defense at trial, testifying he believed a victim (Jessie Whitfield) pointed a gun at him.
The jury was instructed on aggravated assault and self-defense but denied Taylor’s proposed lesser-included instruction for simple assault; the jury convicted Taylor of one count of aggravated assault.
At sentencing, Taylor received 20 years for aggravated assault and an additional consecutive 5-year firearms enhancement, for a total of 25 years; Taylor appealed.
On appeal Taylor argued (1) the trial court erred in refusing the simple-assault instruction, (2) the 5-year enhancement violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, and (3) the enhancement violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Issue	Taylor's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying lesser-included instruction for simple assault	Evidence (multiple guns) supported a theory of negligent shooting/mistake, so a jury could convict assault rather than aggravated assault	Taylor testified he intentionally shot in self-defense; no evidence of negligence; only intentional or acquittal based on self-defense supported	Denial of simple-assault instruction affirmed; evidence showed intentional use of deadly weapon, not negligence
Whether 5-year firearms enhancement violates Apprendi	Enhancement increased statutory maximum and thus must be found by a jury as an element	Jury found every fact necessary for enhancement (use of a firearm); Apprendi requires jury find facts underlying enhancement, not that jury impose enhancement itself	Enhancement does not violate Apprendi; judge may impose enhancement after jury finds required facts
Whether firearms enhancement violates Double Jeopardy	Enhancement and underlying offense punish same conduct, resulting in multiple punishments for same offense	Enhancement is a legislatively authorized additional sentence, not a separate substantive offense; legislature intended both to apply	No double-jeopardy violation; enhancement is an additional sentence within legislative scheme

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Ford v. State, 975 So.2d 859 (Miss. 2008) (use of deadly weapon with testimony of intentional conduct defeats simple-assault instruction)
Brown v. State, 995 So.2d 698 (Miss. 2008) (Apprendi requires jury determination of facts that are elements of a sentence enhancement)
Jackson v. State, 684 So.2d 1213 (Miss. 1996) (distinction between simple and aggravated assault when deadly weapon present hinges on negligent vs. intentional conduct)
Rubenstein v. State, 941 So.2d 735 (Miss. 2006) (review of jury instructions is done by reading instructions as a whole)