Rogers v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00064-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00064-COA2006-CT-00064-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 10-17-2007 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-18-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter & Aggravated assault - Prosecutorial misconduct - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Verdict of juror - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-3-17 - Self-defense Judge(s) Concurring: IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Dissenting Author : King, C.J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Lee, P.J. and Chandler, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: King, C.J. with separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Lee, P.J. and Chandler, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-14-2005 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Isadore Patrick Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, MANSLAUGHTER, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS; COUNT II, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I; AND COUNT III, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS TO RUN CONSECUTIVE TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT II, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: G. Gilmore Martin Case Number: 05,006SCRP |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Reginald Vernell Rogers |
James L. Penley, Jr. |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | Laura H. Tedder | ||
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 & Aggravated assault - Prosecutorial misconduct - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Verdict of juror - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-3-17 - Self-defense |
| Summary of the Facts: | Reginald Rogers was convicted of manslaughter and two counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to twenty years for manslaughter and ten years for one aggravated assault conviction and five years for the other aggravated assault conviction. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prosecutorial misconduct Rogers argues that the prosecution improperly presented a murder case despite the fact that he was indicted for two counts of aggravated assault and one count of manslaughter and that the prosecution undercut his right to assert self-defense. Rogers’ argument is procedurally barred under M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) for a lack of relevant authority. In addition, the prosecution has an inherent right to counter the defense’s theory of the case as long as it does so within the bounds of the evidence. Accordingly, the prosecution committed no misconduct when it argued that Rogers did not act in reasonably necessary self-defense. Issue 2: Verdict of juror Rogers argues that one of the jurors told his family that she was confused and pressured into returning a guilty verdict. Rogers concedes that a juror may not impeach her own verdict. However, he argues that the circuit court should have sent the jurors back to the jury room for further deliberation. Rogers never moved to have the jury sent back for further deliberations. Where the circuit court did not receive an opportunity to resolve an issue, it may not be presented for the first time on appeal. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Rogers argues that because he unintentionally shot the victims when he was acting in self-defense, as a matter of law, he may not be found guilty of aggravated assault. Reason and logic dictate that when an accused, acting in necessary self-defense, intends to injure or kill the aggressor only, unintentionally injures an innocent bystander, that transferred intent does not apply because the law justifies the accused’s actions towards the aggressor. According to section 97-3-17, a homicide may be excused when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent. By extension, it follows that the same principles should apply to make an assault that does not result in death excusable under the same circumstances. Rogers brought his weapon into the Hilltop Lounge, but there is no evidence to suggest that Rogers was the actual initial aggressor. Likewise, there is no evidence that Rogers provoked or even expected a deadly confrontation with the victim when he went to the Hilltop Lounge. The undisputed evidence indicates that Rogers and the victim had a series of confrontations, but the victim had walked away. However, without provocation, the victim turned towards Rogers, drew his pistol, and shot Rogers in the chest. There can be no doubt that, at that point, Rogers had a lawful right to act in self-defense and use deadly force to repel his attacker. Thus, based upon a careful review of the record, that a reasonable, fair-minded juror could only find that Rogers’ initial return of gunfire toward the victim was justifiable as an act in necessary self-defense. Further, the testimony is undisputed that two other victims were struck with errant bullets from Rogers’ pistol when Rogers initially returned fire in an effort to repel the initial aggressor. Therefore, as a matter of law, Rogers had no unlawful intent to cause bodily injury to the other victims with a deadly weapon, and he did not act recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Rogers’ two aggravated assault convictions are reversed and rendered. With regard to the manslaughter conviction, Rogers argues that he acted in reasonable self-defense. Because the underlying facts were in dispute, it was for the jury to decide the question of whether Rogers, as he exited the Hilltop Lounge, acted reasonably in necessary self-defense when he shot the victim in the head. There was testimony from numerous witnesses that, as Rogers was leaving the Hilltop Lounge, Rogers shot the victim in the back of the head as he lay helpless on the floor. The jury could have found that Rogers did not act in necessary self-defense because, at that time, the victim did not present a reasonable threat to Rogers’ life. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence on the manslaughter conviction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
