194 So. 3d 139
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Sept. 28, 2011, Travon Brown shot and killed Cornelius Harris and Felicia (Felisha) Ruffin in Harris’s home; Brown was found at the scene with a gunshot wound to his hand and his Glock was recovered.
- Police recovered nine .40-caliber cartridge casings from the scene and ballistics testing tied the projectiles and casings to Brown’s Glock; the gun contained live rounds.
- Brown told police his gun fell out during a scuffle with Harris while they were playing Xbox and discharged several times accidentally; witnesses described a struggle and one witness (Babbitt) testified Brown shot Harris in the head.
- A jury convicted Brown of two counts of deliberate-design murder; he received consecutive life sentences.
- Brown appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred in refusing several defense jury instructions (including stand-your-ground, accident/misfortune, Weathersby), (2) the court improperly limited toxicology testimony, (3) the evidence was insufficient or against the overwhelming weight, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court erred by refusing stand-your-ground/self-defense instructions (D-8, D-10) | Court should have instructed jury that Brown, if not initial aggressor and invited in, had no duty to retreat and could stand his ground; jury should judge actions as perceived at the time | Self-defense was adequately covered by given Instruction 5; refused instructions were unsupported by evidence | Refusals proper; Instruction 5 fairly covered self-defense and reasonableness standards |
| Refusal of accident/misfortune and heat-of-passion instructions (D-12, D-13) | Brown argued killings could have been accidental or in heat of passion during struggle, warranting acquittal or lesser offense | Jury was already instructed to consider accident/misfortune; proposed instructions duplicative or unsupported | Refusals proper because defense theory was adequately covered elsewhere |
| Refusal of Weathersby instruction (D-14) | Brown, as sole eyewitness, argued his reasonable account must be accepted unless substantially contradicted | Court found Brown’s account contradicted by physical facts and other witness testimony (e.g., Xbox location, Babbitt’s testimony) | Refusal proper; Weathersby inapplicable because defendant’s story was contradicted |
| Exclusion/limitation of toxicology evidence for victims | Brown argued victim drug/alcohol use was relevant to aggressiveness, reactions, and credibility | State argued results were speculative and irrelevant to the events; court agreed | Limiting toxicology testimony was within discretion and not reversible error |
| Sufficiency/weight of the evidence | Brown argued evidence showed accident/self-defense or at most manslaughter | State pointed to ballistics (nine trigger pulls), witness statements including prior threat, and other evidence supporting deliberate design | Evidence sufficient for deliberate-design murder; verdict not against overwhelming weight |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Brown alleged counsel failed to request manslaughter instruction and failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct during closing | State argued strategic choices do not equal deficient performance and record shows no prejudice | Claim denied; counsel’s performance not shown to be deficient or prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Ousley v. State, 984 So. 2d 996 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for reviewing refused jury instructions; refusal proper when instruction is covered elsewhere or unsupported)
- Spires v. State, 10 So. 3d 477 (Miss. 2009) (self-defense and stand-your-ground principles; coverage of defense by other instructions)
- Fryou v. State, 987 So. 2d 461 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (Weathersby rule explained; when defendant’s uncontradicted story must be accepted)
- Nelson v. State, 10 So. 3d 898 (Miss. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on directed verdict/JNOV)
- Craft v. State, 970 So. 2d 178 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (definition and inference of deliberate-design murder; use of deadly weapon as circumstance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)