Hudson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-00387-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00387-COA ; 2008-CT-00387-SCT ; 2008-CT-00387-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-08-2009
Opinion Author: KING, C.J.
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Culpable-negligence manslaughter - Defense theory jury instructions
Judge(s) Concurring: IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ.
Dissenting Author : CARLTON, J., with separate written opinion.
Dissent Joined By : LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-25-2008
Appealed from: Itawamba County Circuit Court
Judge: Jim S. Pounds
Disposition: CONVICTED OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH SIX YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, AND TO PAY A $2,000 FINE AND $7,265 IN RESTITUTION
District Attorney: John Richard Young
Case Number: CR-06-104

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: GREGORY WAYNE HUDSON




WILLIAM C. STENNETT



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD  

    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 - Defense theory jury instructions

    Summary of the Facts: Gregory Hudson was convicted of culpable-negligence manslaughter. Hudson was sentenced to twenty years, with six years suspended and five years of post-release supervision, and ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $2,000 and to pay restitution in the amount of $7,265. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Hudson argues that the trial court erred by granting two of the State’s jury instructions and denying four of his proffered jury instructions. With regard to two of the instructions, Hudson has not provided any authority that supports his contention that it was improper for the trial court to include the drugs in the jury instruction. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred. In addition, the instruction was properly denied as a cumulative instruction. His objection to one of the instructions is procedurally barred, because he failed to raise a contemporaneous objection. In one of his instructions, Hudson attempted to explain the difference between simple negligence and culpable negligence for the jury. However, the jury instructions given adequately defined culpable negligence. Part of Hudson’s defense was that he was not under the influence of drugs at the time of the accident. A defendant has a fundamental right to have proper jury instructions given that present his theory of the case. The State’s forensic toxicologist testified regarding Hudson’s drug and alcohol test results. The toxicologist testified that the level of barbiturates, which are found in sleeping pills or sedatives, found in Hudson’s blood was a “subtherapeutic low” amount. Despite the low amount reported, the toxicologist stated that it may have an effect on an average person. The law is clear that while driving under the influence is a crime in and of itself, this in itself does not constitute culpable negligence. Although the trial court specifically stated that the information regarding the drugs was not required to constitute culpable negligence, by including the drugs in one of the jury instructions, the trial court specifically instructed the jury to consider Hudson’s ingestion of the drugs as a factor indicating culpable negligence. While the State in its indictment does not unequivocally allege that Hudson was under the influence of drugs, it does allege a cause and effect relationship between the enumerated items, including the ingestion of drugs and the death of the victim. Where the State is allowed to allege the existence of a cause and effect relationship, the defendant has an equal right to question the existence of that cause and effect relationship. Thus, there was a foundation in the evidence for Hudson’s defense jury instruction. On remand, if the trial court intends to specifically instruct the jury to consider the drug test results, Hudson is entitled to a jury instruction that embodies his theory of the defense. Any language that suggests that the jury cannot consider this evidence in its deliberations should not be included in the instruction.


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