Nolan v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-00564-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00564-COA ; 2008-CT-00564-SCT ; 2008-CT-00564-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-25-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: The judgment of the Circuit Court of DeSoto County of conviction of manslaughter and sentence of seven years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and thirteen years of post-release supervision, with five years reporting and eight years non-reporting, is affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Defense of insanity - Section 97-3-47 - Heat of passion Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-05-2008 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THIRTEEN YEARS OF POST-RELIEF SUPERVISION, WITH FIVE YEARS REPORTING AND EIGHT YEARS NONREPORTING District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CR2006-0894CD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Clinton Wyatt Nolan |
JAMES D. FRANKS JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR. | ||
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 - Defense of insanity - Section 97-3-47 - Heat of passion |
| Summary of the Facts: | Clinton Nolan was convicted of heat-of-passion manslaughter and was sentenced to seven years and to thirteen years of post-release supervision, with five reporting and eight non-reporting. Nolan appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Nolan argues that the State failed to prove that he was sane at the time of the killing and that the State failed to prove each element of heat-of-passion manslaughter. To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. The question of whether Nolan was sane at the time of the killing is a question of fact. The circuit judge found that Nolan was sane at the time of the offense. Although Nolan offered expert testimony that he was insane at that time, the State offered rebuttal expert testimony that he was not. The law is well settled that the fact-finder, here the circuit judge, is the arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses. Finding that Nolan acted out of emotion when he shot his father, the circuit judge convicted him of heat-of-passion manslaughter. However, the record does not support Nolan’s conviction for heat-of-passion manslaughter, as the State did not offer any evidence establishing that Nolan acted in the heat of passion when he killed his father. Heat of passion is defined as a state of violent and uncontrollable rage engendered by a blow or certain other provocation given, which will reduce a homicide from the grade of murder to that of manslaughter. Nolan’s statement to the 911 dispatcher that he “acted out of emotion” when he killed his father is not sufficient to support a conviction for heat-of-passion manslaughter, as there is nothing in the record that suggests that his father provoked Nolan by words or acts at the time of the shooting. There is sufficient evidence, however, to sustain a conviction for manslaughter pursuant section 97-3-47, as Nolan’s actions show a conscious, wanton and reckless disregard of the likely fatal consequences of his willful act which created an unreasonable risk. There is no need to remand for resentencing, as the penalties for both heat-of-passion manslaughter and manslaughter pursuant to the section 97-3-47 are the same. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
