Pitts v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-KA-01034-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-01034-COA ; 2009-CT-01034-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-14-2010
Opinion Author: Lee, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Murder - Jury instructions - Manslaughter - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-30-2009
Appealed from: George County Circuit Court
Judge: Dale Harkey
Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: ANTHONY N. LAWRENCE III
Case Number: 2007-10,105(3)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Jeremy Neil Pitts a/k/a Jeremy Neal Pitts




JIM L. DAVIS III, GEORGE S. SHADDOCK



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS  

    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: Murder - Jury instructions - Manslaughter - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence

    Summary of the Facts: Jeremy Pitts was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Jury instructions Pitts argues that one of the State’s jury instructions combined the elements of deliberate design murder and depraved-heart murder. As a matter of common sense, every murder committed with deliberate design is by definition done in the commission of an act imminently dangerous to others, evincing a depraved heart. Thus, there is no error in coalescing the two sections. Pitts also argues that a self-defense instruction should have been denied, because it failed to name a specific person. Pitts did not object to this instruction; in fact, his own proposed self-defense instruction did not state a specific person but instead used the language: “some person.” When read together, the jury instructions are clear that the person referred to in the self-defense instruction was the victim. At no point did Pitts allege that he feared anyone else in the room besides the victim. Thus, there was no error. Issue 2: Manslaughter Pitts argues the jury incorrectly received an instruction on heat-of-passion manslaughter when it should have been instructed on another theory of manslaughter, such as imperfect self-defense. Not every instruction need cover every point of importance, so long as the point is fairly presented elsewhere. Pitts’s theory of defense was fairly presented to the jury. Pitts was given several manslaughter instructions, as well as a self-defense instruction. He did not propose an imperfect self-defense instruction at trial, and it was not plain error that the instruction was not given. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Pitts argues that his counsel was ineffective. The merits of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal should be addressed only when the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or the parties stipulate that the record is adequate to allow the appellate court to make the finding without consideration of the findings of fact of the trial judge. The record on appeal is insufficient to affirmatively show ineffective assistance of counsel of constitutional dimensions. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Pitts admitted to the jury that the victim was unarmed when he shot him. All the witnesses confirmed that the victim was unarmed. Several people were present in the room, and others, including an infant, were present in the house. Pitts left the scene without ensuring that the victim received medical assistance. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the verdict.


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