Pruitt v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01405-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-28-2010 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-20-2008 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: Count I: Conviction of manslaughter and sentence of twenty (20) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with conditions. District Attorney: Anthony J. Buckley Case Number: 2007-246-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | MAURICE PRUITT |
BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER, LESLIE S. LEE |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: | Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Maurice Pruitt was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pruitt argues that the evidence is insufficient. Manslaughter is defined as the killing of a human being, without malice, in the heat of passion, but in a cruel or unusual manner, or by the use of a dangerous weapon, without authority of law, and not in necessary self-defense. The only element in dispute in this case is whether Pruitt shot and killed the victim while acting in necessary self-defense. In order to justify the appellant’s contention of self defense, the record must disclose that the appellant had a reasonable apprehension of a design or plan on the part of the deceased to kill him or to do great bodily harm, and furthermore that there was imminent danger of such design being accomplished. Pruitt admitted that he never actually saw the victim with a gun, and a witness testified that Pruitt told him shortly after the shooting that the victim did not have a gun. Two witnesses to the shooting testified that it did not appear as though the victim had a gun. Whether the jury accepted the testimony of the witnesses or the testimony of Pruitt, the outcome does not change. Reasonable fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment could have taken either version into consideration and reasonably found that Pruitt’s use of deadly force was either unnecessary or premature and was not exercised in necessary self-defense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
