Chinn v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-02231-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-28-2007 Opinion Author: DIAZ, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Theory of case instructions Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, P.J., Graves, Dickinson and Lamar, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Dissent Joined By : Smith, C.J., Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-08-2005 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: Noah Brent Chinn was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to a twenty-year prison term. District Attorney: Anthony J. Buckley Case Number: 2004-378-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | NOAH BRENT CHINN |
MICHAEL DUANE MITCHELL |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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 - Theory of case instructions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Noah Chinn was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to a twenty-year prison term. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Chinn argues that the court erred in refusing two of his proposed jury instructions because they were required to present his theory of the case that the shooting was an accident. Where the defendant’s proffered instruction has an evidentiary basis, properly states the law, and is the only instruction presenting his theory of the case, refusal to grant it constitutes reversible error. Chinn offered proper instructions, which tracked the language contained in subsections (a) and (b) of section 97-3-17, which states that the accidental killing of a human being is excusable. The State gave two instructions setting forth the elements of both murder and manslaughter. While both instructed the jury concerning self-defense, neither included an exception for an accidental shooting under section 97-3-17. Therefore, Chinn’s accident theory of the case was not sufficiently covered by other instructions. Even though Chinn did not present evidence on his behalf, sufficient evidence was elicited from the State’s presentation of the case to support the defendant’s theory. Neither of the two eyewitnesses could see inside the vehicle, and both testified that Chinn did not have a gun before he reached into the car. They also testified that after the victim was shot, the defendant tried to resuscitate her, pleading with her not to die. The physical evidence, although minimal, also could support Chinn’s theory that the shooting was an accident. Because Chinn was entitled to have his theory of the case submitted to the jury under proper instruction of the court, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
