Moore v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00526-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-13-2003 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Imperfect self-defense - 911 tape - Present sense impression - Intoxication instruction - Weight of evidence - Character evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Cobb, Easley and Carlson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-06-2002 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of the murder of her husband and sentenced to life imprisonment. District Attorney: John R. Young Case Number: CR01-584(G)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Rachel L. Moore |
KENNETH JERMAINE GRIGSBY
JAMES W. CRAIG |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFERY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Imperfect self-defense - 911 tape - Present sense impression - Intoxication instruction - Weight of evidence - Character evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Rachel Moore was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1:Imperfect self-defense Moore argues that the court was under a duty to direct a verdict in her favor based on the theory of “imperfect self-defense.” The theory of “imperfect self-defense” is where an intentional killing may be considered manslaughter if done without malice but under a bona fide (but unfounded) belief that it was necessary to prevent great bodily harm. The present case is not one of “imperfect self-defense.” The evidence shows that Moore picked the victim up from his mother’s home, knowing that he was intoxicated and knowing of his propensity for violence when intoxicated. After an abusive altercation in the vehicle and upon arrival at the trailer, Moore stated to the victim “I hope you know you’re fixing to die.” She then armed herself with a loaded .410 shotgun, went outside and gave a “warning shot.” She then waited some forty to forty-five minutes before exiting the trailer to talk to the victim. During this forty-five minute interval, Moore had access to a working telephone and failed to call anyone for help. This is credible evidence from which the jury could have found or reasonably inferred each element of the offense of murder. Issue 2: 911 tape Moore argues that statements she made while the owner of the trailer was on the telephone with the 911 operator, which are somewhat audible in the background of the tape, should have been admitted into evidence as evidence of her state of mind just after the shooting. However, certain portions of the 911 tape that were heard by the jury clearly evidence Moore’s state of mind immediately following the incident. Moore also argues that statements made by the owner to the 911 operator were evidence of present sense impressions. A present sense impression is a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition or immediately thereafter. The statements made by the owner were not made while he was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter. Issue 3: Intoxication instruction Moore argues that she was entitled to a diminished capacity instruction due to her intoxication. An accused is not entitled to an instruction based upon a defense not authorized by law, and the Supreme Court has expressly held that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to murder. Issue 4: Weight of evidence Moore argues that the overwhelming weight of the evidence strongly favors judgment notwithstanding the verdict. There is ample evidence to support the verdict of murder. Moore was beaten by the victim. She armed herself with a .410 shotgun, which she fired once as a “warning” to the victim and fired again some forty-five minutes later fatally wounding the victim. Issue 5: Character evidence Moore argues that introduction of testimony from the victim’s sister Moore’s demeanor at the time she picked the victim up from her mother-in-law’s home amounted to improper character evidence. M.R.E. 404(b) prohibits admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. Here, the testimony is not character evidence because it is not testimony of a character trait offered to prove conformity therewith, nor is it testimony regarding other crimes, wrongs or acts. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
