Matthews v. City of Madison
| Docket Number: | 2012-CT-01528-SCT Linked Case(s): 2012-CT-01528-SCT ; 2012-KM-01528-COA ; 2012-KM-01528-COA ; 2012-CT-01528-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-31-2014 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Simple assault & Disorderly conduct - Castle doctrine - Section 97-3-15 - Defensive force Judge(s) Concurring: Dickinson, P.J., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: King, J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens and Chandler, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Coleman, J., Concurs in Result Only With Separate Written Opinion. Randolph, P.J., Concurs in Result Only Without Separate Written Opinion. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-29-2012 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: JOHN HUEY EMFINGER Disposition: Convicted of simple assault and disorderly conduct Case Number: 2011-0670-E |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Mark Matthews a/k/a Mark David Mathews a/k/a Mark D. Mathews a/k/a Mark David Matthews a/k/a Mark Mathews |
CHRIS N. K. GANNER |
||
| Appellee: | City of Madison, Mississippi | JOHN HEDGLIN |
|
|
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: | Simple assault & Disorderly conduct - Castle doctrine - Section 97-3-15 - Defensive force |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mark Matthews was convicted of simple assault and disorderly conduct in Madison County Municipal Court. The conviction was affirmed by the county court, the circuit court, and the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Matthews argued on appeal that the county court had erred by failing to apply the Castle Doctrine found in section 97-3-15. Specifically, Matthews asserted “that under the Castle Doctrine, the assault was justified to prevent [his child’s grandmother] from kidnaping his child.” The Court of Appeals stated that “[t]he statute requires that the ‘person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm . . . .’” and that no evidence was presented that Matthews had feared imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or his daughter. Matthews now argues that the statute’s presumption justifying defensive force has no requirement for proof that he be in “reasonable fear” before using defensive force. The application of the presumption does not depend on the existence of reasonable fear in the defendant; rather, the presumption applies if one of the circumstances in subsection (3) is met. The Castle Doctrine defense does not apply to the facts presented here. The grandmother was within her right, as the county-court judge found, to retrieve the child from Matthew’s car. Thus, under these facts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Matthews guilty of simple assault. Matthews is correct, insofar as the Court of Appeals’ language incorrectly states that the Castle Doctrine’s presumption justifying defensive force requires proof that he be in “reasonable fear” before using defensive force. However, Matthews was not entitled to the presumption. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
