Patterson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-KA-00293-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-KA-00293-COA ; 2011-KA-00293-COA ; 2011-CT-00293-SCT ; 2011-KA-00293-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-14-2013 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Manslaughter instruction - Insanity defense - Competency - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Dissenting Author : James, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-20-2011 Appealed from: Scott County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 10-CR-078-SC-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Timothy Joseph Patterson a/k/a Timothy Patterson, Jr. a/k/a Timothy J. Patterson a/k/a Timothy Patterson |
JERRY L. BUSTIN
KELLY LEE STRIBLING |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND |
|
|
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 - Manslaughter instruction - Insanity defense - Competency - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timothy Patterson was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Manslaughter instruction Patterson argues that the court erred when it refused his request to instruct the jury that it could find him guilty of manslaughter. While a defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. Lesser-included offense instructions should be given if there is an evidentiary basis in the record that would permit a jury rationally to find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense and to acquit him of the greater offense. Here, there was no evidentiary basis that would have allowed the jury to find Patterson guilty of manslaughter but not guilty of murder. Five eyewitnesses testified that they saw Patterson shoot the victim in the head without any provocation. Five eyewitnesses also testified that Patterson then stood over the victim and shot him in the head again. Because there was not an evidentiary basis to support a manslaughter instruction, the circuit court acted within its discretion when it denied Patterson’s request. Issue 2: Insanity defense Patterson argues that the court erred in holding that Patterson would not be allowed to present an insanity defense because Patterson had failed to provide timely notice of his intent to do so. The circuit court did not err when it prohibited Patterson from relying on an insanity defense. It was within the circuit court’s discretion to do so, considering Patterson’s last-minute notice. Furthermore, the circuit court’s decision did not prejudice Patterson because Patterson’s insanity theory was based on his voluntary intoxication, which is not a legitimate defense in Mississippi. Issue 3: Competency Patterson argues that the circuit court erred in finding that he was competent to stand trial. When the competency of the defendant to stand trial is raised, the trial court should conduct a hearing prior to the trial to determine whether there is a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense. If the trial court finds that there is not sufficient proof to show a probability that the defendant is incapable of conducting a rational defense, he should make such finding a matter of record. Patterson is a college graduate. There was no evidence that he had any psychological or psychiatric disorders that would have prevented him from conducting a rational defense. Patterson’s lack-of-competency argument is based entirely on the premise that although he could remember the night of the victim’s death until near the moment the victim was killed, he could not remember whether he had actually killed the victim. Furthermore, Patterson claimed his loss of memory was related solely to his voluntary alcohol consumption. While this is an issue of first impression in Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit has held that “the propriety of trying an amnesiac defendant is a question to be determined according to the circumstances of each individual case.” Patterson was able to remember much of the evening that the victim was killed, but he claimed that he could not remember the precise moment. Patterson did not deny that he killed the victim but simply testified that he could not remember that moment. However, five other eyewitnesses were able to remember that moment. They all consistently testified that without provocation, Patterson shot the victim in the head. Thus, the circuit court’s decision that Patterson was competent to stand trial was not manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Patterson argues his three retained trial attorneys rendered ineffective assistance for multiple reasons. On direct appeal, review of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is confined strictly to the record. Patterson claims that his attorney essentially conceded that Patterson was guilty of murder. However, the attorney argued that Patterson did not kill the victim with deliberate design. Consequently, he argued that Patterson was not guilty of murder. Patterson argues that his trial attorneys were ineffective in that they did not request an involuntary-intoxication instruction. However, there was no evidence that Patterson was involuntarily intoxicated. Consequently, there was no evidence to support an involuntary-intoxication jury instruction. Patterson claims his trial attorneys were ineffective because they did not timely put the prosecution on notice that Patterson would rely on an insanity defense. Patterson’s trial attorneys’ tactical decision not to pursue an extremely weak, if not nonexistent, insanity defense in lieu of a relatively stronger defense did not prejudice Patterson. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Patterson argues there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Five eyewitnesses testified that Patterson shot the victim in the head from close range. Because there was undisputed testimony that Patterson shot the victim once in the head, and then stood over the victim and shot him in the head a second time, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Patterson deliberately killed the victim. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
