Neese v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01070-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-14-2008 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Evidentiary hearing - Sufficiency of evidence - Manslaughter instructions Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., and Barnes, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Dissenting Author : Robers, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Griffis, Ishee, and Carlton, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-06-2007 Appealed from: NESHOBA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FOR EACH COUNT District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 07-CR-0016-NS-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | PAUL M. NEESE |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS |
|
|
| 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 - Evidentiary hearing - Sufficiency of evidence - Manslaughter instructions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Paul Neese was convicted of two counts of murder and was sentenced to two life terms. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Evidentiary hearing Neese argues that the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the voluntariness of his confession. Neither general on the scene questioning, nor voluntary statements made by a defendant are enough to trigger the requirements of Miranda. The factors to consider when determining whether a reasonable person would feel as if he was in custody include the place of interrogation; the time of interrogation; the people present; the amount of force or physical restraint used by the officers; the length and form of the questions; whether the defendant comes to the authorities voluntarily; and what the defendant is told about the situation. Neese’s admission occurred before he was taken into custody. Neese approached the officer and admitted shooting the two victims when the officer inquired as to what was going on. No force was used, and Neese was not physically restrained when the admission was made. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Neese challenges both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence supporting his conviction. Neese relies on Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 209, 147 So. 481, 482 (1933) to support his contention that as the only eyewitness to the shootings, his testimony established a case of self-defense that was not substantially contradicted by other evidence. This issue is procedurally barred for failure to present it to the trial court. In addition, there is no merit to the issue. Weathersby is inapplicable because Neese’s version of events is unreasonable and is contradicted by credible witnesses for the State and by the physical facts. The State offered the testimony of four credible witnesses whose testimony contradicts Neese’s version of what happened. In addition, Neese’s statement following the killings is inconsistent with his version of events as recounted at trial. Issue 3: Manslaughter instructions Neese argues that the trial judge improperly denied his requests for manslaughter instructions. The test for determining whether a manslaughter instruction based on a heat-of-passion theory is warranted is whether the defendant acted in the heat of passion and without malice. There is simply no evidence to indicate that Neese shot the victims while in the heat of passion. In fact, the evidence is consistent with the State’s theory that Neese shot them while they slept. It is well established that a trial judge may properly deny jury instructions when there is no evidentiary basis in the record for them. In addition, the granting of the manslaughter instruction had the potential for causing the jury to ignore Neese’s stated defense of self-defense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
