Barnes v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01025-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01025-COA ; 2010-CT-01025-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-17-2012 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Deliberate design - Sufficiency of evidence - Doctrine of transferred intent - Continuance - Discovery violation - Jury instructions Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-19-2009 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Dale Harkey Disposition: CONVICTED OF DELIBERATE-DESIGN MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Anthony N. Lawrence, III Case Number: 2007-10,377(3) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Laterrice Terrell Barnes |
J. BRICE KERR
PHILLIP BROADHEAD
LESLIE S. LEE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Murder - Deliberate design - Sufficiency of evidence - Doctrine of transferred intent - Continuance - Discovery violation - Jury instructions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Latterice Barnes was convicted of deliberate design murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Deliberate-design murder is defined as the killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means or in any manner when done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being. Deliberate design to kill a person may be formed very quickly, and perhaps only moments before the act of consummating the intent. The doctrine of transferred intent states that when a person maliciously intends to kill a person and accidentally kills a person other than the one intended, the malicious intent of the unlawful act directed toward one person is transferred to the other person. There was sufficient evidence that Barnes, Coleman, and Nicholas went to Franklin’s house shortly after an initial confrontation, intending to shoot Franklin. Barnes argues that he did not form a plan to shoot Franklin; rather, he claims he arrived after the shooting had started, and it was then that he pulled his gun and began shooting. However, Barnes admitted in his statement to police: “Yeah I was shooting at [Franklin]. The boy had supposed to have came around through the house.” Furthermore, Nicholas testified that Barnes shot the victim. Although Barnes intended to shoot Franklin, his malicious intent was transferred to the victim. Issue 2: Continuance Barnes argues that the denial of his motion for continuance was error and prejudiced his defense, as his counsel was not given adequate time to prepare for the case. The record shows that the case had already been continued prior to the court’s denial of the motion. Defense counsel was assigned to the case in September 2008 and filed a motion for continuance on October 27, 2008, which the circuit court granted. The trial was set for February 17, 2009. Thus, the court did not err in finding that there was sufficient time to prepare for trial. Barnes further argues that the circuit court’s denial of the motion for continuance constituted prejudicial error because it resulted in the exclusion of three witnesses. A circuit court may exclude defense evidence where discovery violations are willful or motivated by the desire to gain a tactical advantage. Although defense counsel claimed it had only learned about these witnesses two days before trial, the three witnesses at issue were Barnes’s close family members, who were present at the confrontation. It is unlikely that they were not available or known to the defense prior to trial. Issue 3: Jury instructions Barnes argues that the circuit court erred by giving Jury Instruction S-7 in conjunction with Jury Instruction S-2, claiming that their admission relieved the State of proving each element of the crime and confused the jury. In determining whether error lies in the granting or refusal of various instructions, the instructions actually given must be read as a whole. When so read, if the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found. The evidence – Barnes’s statement that he was going to kill Franklin and his subsequent action of firing a gun at Franklin’s home – clearly demonstrated that Barnes, Nicholas, and Coleman shared a malicious intent to harm Franklin. When Dott, an innocent bystander, was killed by their actions, the intent to harm Franklin was transferred to Dott. Who actually shot and killed Dott is largely irrelevant. Thus, there is no error in the grant of the jury instructions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
