Maye v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CT-02147-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-02147-COA ; 2007-KA-02147-COA ; 2007-CT-02147-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-02-2010 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: Court of Appeals vacated; Circuit court reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Defense-of-others jury instruction - Section 99-3-15(1)(f) Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Dickinson and Kitchens, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Graves, P.J., specially concurs with separate written opinion joined by Kitchens and Chandler, JJ. Dissenting Author : Randolph, J., dissents with separate written opinion Dissent Joined By : Joined in part by Pierce, J Dissenting Author : Pierce, J., dissents with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Joined in part by Lamar, J. Concurs in Result Only: Lamar, J., concurs in result only. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-02-2007 Appealed from: Jefferson Davis County Circuit Court Judge: Prentiss Harrell Disposition: Maye was convicted of capital murder. The Court of Appeals reversed Maye's conviction and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court had violated Maye's constitutional right to be tried in the county where the offense occurred. District Attorney: Haldon J. Kittrell Case Number: K2002-0061E |
|
| Note: | This opinion vacates a previous judgment by the Court of Appeals, reverses the Circuit Court's judgment and remands the case. See the COA opinion at: http:..www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO5922.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Cory Jermine Maye |
ABRAM J. PAFFORD, MICHAEL S. LABSON, ANNA ST. JOHN, ROBERT B. McDUFF, ROBERT E. EVANS, BENJAMIN J. VERNIA, JESSICA GABEL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LA DONNA C. HOLLAND |
|
|
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: | Capital murder - Defense-of-others jury instruction - Section 99-3-15(1)(f) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cory Maye appealed his conviction for capital murder, and the Court of Appeals remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court had violated Maye’s constitutional right to be tried in the county where the offense occurred. The Supreme Court granted both the State’s and Maye’s petitions for certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Maye argues that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing two of his proposed jury instructions. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. In homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuses that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely, and the trial court’s failure to do so is error requiring reversal of a judgment of conviction. The defense’s proposed instructions both further defined self-defense. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that the two self-defense instructions actually given to the jury sufficiently stated the law of self-defense and that the additional instructions were not necessary. While these two instructions are correct statements of the law, they do not fully define self-defense as applied to the facts of this case. Neither instruction addressed Maye’s asserted self-defense theory to include a “defense-of-others” rationale. Our justifiable-homicide statute, section 99-3-15(1)(f), provides the basis for a defense-of-others instruction. Such an instruction may be proper when the defendant has reasonable grounds to believe certain force is necessary to prevent the danger of imminent death or bodily injury to another person. The defendant and the third party may be threatened by the same source. The jury must decide the reasonableness of the defendant’s response in light of the circumstances. But this is not to say that the mere presence of a third party will warrant the instruction. The third party must be exposed to some real and apparent danger when the defendant acts. It is undisputed that Maye’s fourteen-month-old daughter was asleep on the middle of the bed when the police officer entered the bedroom and was shot by Maye. Maye should have received a “defense-of-others” instruction to address his asserted defense of his daughter. One of Maye’s instructions was a correct statement of the law regarding how the jury should have interpreted Maye’s actions, and it properly would have extended Maye’s self-defense claim to include his asserted claim of defense of his infant daughter. Neither of these was covered by other instructions. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the instruction, an error which warrants reversal. His other instruction did not properly state the law on a homeowner’s right to protect his dwelling, and it would have been cumulative. On remand, Maye is entitled to reassert his right to be tried in Jefferson Davis County. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
