Barfield v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-01606-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-03-2009
Opinion Author: Chandler, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Manslaughter - Photographs - M.R.E. 403 - Venue - Weathersby rule - Weight of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens and Pierce, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-25-2008
Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court
Judge: Lisa P. Dodson
Disposition: Conviction of manslaughter and sentence of twenty (20) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections
District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II
Case Number: B2401-07-00305

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Jonathan Barfield




OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER, LESLIE S. LEE



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT  

    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 - Photographs - M.R.E. 403 - Venue - Weathersby rule - Weight of evidence

    Summary of the Facts: Jonathan Barfield was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Photographs Barfield argues that the photographs admitted into evidence were gruesome and unfairly prejudicial. When the State introduced the photographs at trial, Barfield failed to make any objection which waives the issue on appeal. In addition, the photograph was used to show the path the bullet traveled as it took the life of the victim and to show the stippling, or powdered particles embedded in the victim’s skin. This evidence was significant because contradictory evidence was provided by testimony from other witnesses as to Barfield’s statements concerning the position of the gun at the time it fired and shot the victim. Thus, they were clearly relevant and under M.R.E. 403, the probative value of these photographs was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Issue 2: Venue Barfield argues that he was denied the right to a fair trial due to the publicity generated by his case in and around Harrison County. A motion for change of venue must be in writing and supported by affidavits of two or more credible persons showing that the defendant cannot receive an impartial and fair trial in that particular county because of prejudgment of the case or grudge or ill will to the defendant in the mind of the public. Barfield did satisfy the requirements of a proper application in that he did file a motion with two attached affidavits alleging that Barfield could not receive a fair trial due to the publicity of the case. Upon this showing by Barfield, the burden then shifted to the State to rebut the presumption that Barfield would not be able to receive a fair trial. This presumption, however, may be rebutted by the State upon proof that an impartial jury was empaneled during voir dire. As revealed in the record, the totality of the voir dire conducted by the trial court and counsel resulted in the seating of a fair and impartial jury, thus rebutting the presumption that an impartial jury could not be obtained by Barfield. Issue 3: Weathersby rule Barfield argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict, and he was entitled to an acquittal based on the Weathersby Rule. The Rule applies where the defendant or the defendant's witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide, their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge. However, the Weathersby Rule is inapplicable where the defendant's version is patently unreasonable, or contradicted by physical facts; where the accused, following the slaying, gives conflicting versions of how the killing took place; and where the accused initially denies the act. Despite Barfield’s assertion that his testimony was uncontradicted, the evidence presented showed otherwise. The evidence showed inconsistencies as to the placement of the gun at the time of the shooting, the disposal of the gun, and the nature of the relationship between Barfield and the victim. Barfield’s account of the event was not reasonable and was substantially contradicted sufficiently to give rise to a jury question. Issue 4: Weight of evidence Barfield argues that the jury’s verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The verdict of manslaughter is so not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow the conviction to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. Barfield admitted shooting the gun and causing the victim’s death. The jury heard the conflicting testimony of Barfield’s account of the shooting and placement of the gun as opposed to the testimony of law enforcement officers who questioned Barfield concerning the facts of the shooting. The jury also heard the testimony and saw the physical evidence concerning the angle of the bullet and subsequent stippling and injuries that Talley suffered from the gunshot wound, indicating an upward trajectory of the bullet.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court