Cooper v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00009-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00009-COA ; 2007-CT-00009-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-16-2007 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Heat of passion manslaughter instruction - Confusing jury instructions - Sufficiency of evidence - Statements of opinion Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-31-2006 Appealed from: WINSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2005-005-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | MARY C. COOPER |
GEORGE T. HOLMES |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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 - Heat of passion manslaughter instruction - Confusing jury instructions - Sufficiency of evidence - Statements of opinion |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mary Cooper was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Heat of passion manslaughter instruction Cooper argues that the court erred in denying a heat of passion manslaughter jury instruction, because of testimony that she and another person had a physical altercation before the killing occurred. However, Cooper herself denied recalling any confrontation between herself and the other person. In addition, this other person was not the ultimate victim, and the victim had no role in the alleged provocation. Words alone are not enough to require a heat of passion manslaughter instruction. Pushing or shoving is also insufficient to require the instruction absent testimony that the defendant was acting out of violent or uncontrollable rage. In this case, the record indicates nothing more than a verbal argument and perhaps some pushing, tussling, and/or a little choking. The record is void of any evidence that Cooper was in a state of violent and uncontrollable rage. In fact, Cooper denied that any physical or verbal altercation took place. No injustice has occurred by the denial of the heat of passion instruction since it lacked evidentiary support. Issue 2: Confusing jury instructions Cooper argues that the jury instructions requested by the State and accepted by the trial court for murder and culpable negligence manslaughter were confusing to the jury or improperly stated the law. Since Cooper made no specific objection to the instructions regarding culpable negligence manslaughter and depraved heart murder, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Cooper argues that the verdict was not supported by the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. A rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Cooper was guilty of murder. The instructions for deliberate design murder and depraved heart murder were submitted together for the jury’s consideration. Although the evidence for deliberate design murder appears slight, the evidence for depraved heart murder was substantial. Two eyewitnesses to the shooting testified that Cooper fired at an occupied vehicle. The classic example of depraved heart murder is shooting into a crowd of people. Issue 4: Statements of opinion Cooper argues that the court improperly allowed statements of opinion to be admitted into evidence. For a case to be reversed on the admission or exclusion of evidence, it must result in prejudice and harm or adversely affect a substantial right of a party. Here, there was no harm or prejudice to the defendant because the testimony was merely cumulative of the testimony of the two eyewitnesses. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
