Murrell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00120-COA Linked Case(s): NO. 2011-CA-00120-SCT CONSOLIDATED WITH 2007-CA-00322-SCT & 2006-CA-00185-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-08-2007 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Jury deliberations - Sufficiency of evidence 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: 12-09-2005 Appealed from: NEWTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: MANSLAUGHTER, SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 05-CR 036 NW G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RAYMOND MURRELL A/K/A RAYMOND LEE MURRELL A/K/A RAYMOND JACKSON |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY 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: | Manslaughter - Jury deliberations - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Raymond Murrell was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury deliberations During jury deliberations, the jury presented the following question to the trial court: “Does knowledge of intent to kill in advance constitute being an ‘active participant’?” The trial court answered in writing: “Yes. Whenever a person has knowledge that another person intends to kill, and thereafter takes an active part in the killing, then he becomes an active participant.” Murrell argues that the conflict between the direct answer “yes” and the explanation could have only confused the jury. While the trial court’s answer “yes” if read alone may have caused confusion, the explanation as a whole was not misleading. The trial court’s explanation to the jury properly conveyed the law. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Murrell argues that he cannot be convicted as an accessory before the fact because he did not actively participate in the crime. Sufficient evidence existed in this case for the jury to infer that Murrell was an active participant in the murder. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
