Mullen v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01671-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01671-COA ; 2006-CT-01671-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-11-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Heat of passion manslaughter instruction - Confusing instructions - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-07-2006 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER, SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITH THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2006-0065-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | TREMAYNE OMAR MULLEN |
GEORGE T. HOLMES |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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 instructions - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tremayne Mullen was convicted of murder. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Heat of passion manslaughter instruction Mullen argues that there was a factual basis that the act was committed in the heat of passion. Heat of passion is a state of violent and uncontrollable rage engendered by a blow or certain other provocation given, which will reduce a homicide from the grade of murder to that of manslaughter. Mullen became upset at the party he was attending and then left the party. Later, he returned armed with a handgun, which he began to brandish before the guests as he spewed expletives. During this time, the victim was not even in the same room. From the testimony at trial, there is no evidence to support that anything occurred that would justify a heat of passion instruction. Issue 2: Confusing instructions Mullen argues that the jury was confused as to the difference between depraved heart murder and culpable negligence manslaughter and that the jury was improperly instructed on culpable negligence. The jury received proper instruction as to the definition of culpable negligence. The difference in the mental state of culpability comes through the jury instructions in that depraved heart murder requires a higher mental culpability, i.e., a depraved heart. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Mullen argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel since his counsel failed to seek proper jury instructions. However, the jury instructions were not erroneous. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Mullen argues that the evidence presented at trial, when taken in the light favorable to the verdict, could only support a conviction for manslaughter and not murder. From the evidence which was presented at trial, malice can be seen from Mullen leaving and returning with a weapon. Likewise, malice is present from his statement that he had been wanting to get the victim for a long time. Thus, there was ample evidence to support the conviction of murder. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
