Tate v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00670-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00670-COA ; 2007-CT-00670-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-16-2008 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Culpable negligence manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Dissenting Author : CARLTON, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : MYERS, P.J., AND IRVING, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-22-2007 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: CONVICTED OF CULPABLE-NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH TEN YEARS TO SERVE, FIVE YEARS ON SUPERVISED PROBATION, AND FIVE YEARS ON POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: James H. Powell, III Case Number: 11,619 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | IRBY MATTHEW TATE |
BETH BURTON,
MARK IVEY BURTON |
|
|
| 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: | Culpable negligence manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Irby Tate was convicted of culpable negligence manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years, with ten years to serve, five years of supervised probation, and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Culpable negligence is defined as the conscious and wanton or reckless disregard of the probabilities of fatal consequences to others as a result of the wilful creation of an unreasonable risk thereof. The only requirement is recklessness or a willful disregard for an unreasonable risk. The prosecution attempted to show that Tate was driving excessively fast and exhibiting reckless behavior when he hit the victim’s car; however, no evidence was presented at trial that Tate was exceeding the posted speed limit. The only evidence presented that Tate might have been speeding was that of an eyewitness who testified that he was driving at a very low rate of speed behind the victim, and that Tate was traveling at “a high rate of speed.” The witness, who was a frequent traveler down that particular road, also testified that it “doesn’t take much to veer over in that curve.” The prosecution’s accident reconstructionist implied in his testimony that Tate was speeding, but he noted that this conclusion was based solely on the truck’s inability to negotiate the curve. The direct evidence clearly demonstrated that Tate, up until the moments preceding the crash, was driving in the correct lane regardless of where the impact occurred. Another claim by the prosecution was that Tate was somehow impaired, making it dangerous for him to be operating a motor vehicle. However, no witness testified that Tate appeared to be intoxicated. A witness and the ambulance driver, who were both in close proximity to Tate after the accident, stated that they did not smell alcohol on Tate. Only one witness, a deputy, testified that there was a smell of alcohol coming from the truck and that Tate looked “slurry”; however, the deputy also admitted that he did not smell alcohol on Tate, even though he got close to him, and that “he could have been nervous from the accident.” Additionally, the blood test of Tate, which was admittedly twenty-five hours after the accident, showed no alcohol in his system. Regarding the ice chest and beer found at the scene, no evidence was presented to show that they belonged to Tate. Even if the jury could infer that Tate threw the cooler into the bushes, the five cans of beer in the cooler were unopened. There was no DNA evidence that linked those items to Tate. The facts, viewed in the light favorable to the State, point so overwhelmingly in favor of Tate that reasonable men could not have arrived at a guilty verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
