Ford v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00673-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-01-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Justifiable-homicide instruction - Castle doctrine - Section 97-3-15(3) - Excusable homicide instruction Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Myers, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-16-2008 Appealed from: BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: KENNETH L. THOMAS Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO EIGHTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: LAURENCE Y. MELLEN Case Number: 2008-073 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | George Ford |
RABUN JONES |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD |
|
|
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 - Justifiable-homicide instruction - Castle doctrine - Section 97-3-15(3) - Excusable homicide instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | George Ford was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eighteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ford argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the jury was not properly instructed. 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. The defendant’s own testimony is enough of an evidentiary foundation to require the giving of a jury instruction. Ford offered a justifiable-homicide instruction, and he argues this instruction was necessary to instruct the jury on three separate theories of his defense that were supported by the evidence and not covered by other instructions. Ford claims that: he had a right to use deadly force to resist the commission of a felony against him, specifically robbery; he had a right to use deadly force to protect his son if he reasonably feared that his son was in danger of serious bodily harm or death; and he had a right to use deadly force if he reasonably feared serious bodily harm, death, or the commission of a felony from the entire group that surrounded his car, rather than from the victim alone. The court gave a jury instruction which limited the jury’s consideration to Ford’s right to protect himself – not his son – from death or serious bodily harm – not a felony – at the hands of the victim alone – not the group. There was evidence to support each of Ford’s three theories of defense. Ford’s proffered justifiable-homicide jury instruction correctly stated the law, had a foundation in the evidence, and was not covered in other jury instructions. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. Ford also argues that the jury should have been instructed that his use of deadly force against the victim was presumptively reasonable under the Castle Doctrine. On remand, the court can consider whether Ford should receive an instruction under section 97-3-15(3). Ford also argues that the jury should have been instructed that it could find him not guilty if it found he had accidentally killed the victim. An intentional act cannot be excused under the doctrine of accident and misfortune. Here, the circuit judge was correct in denying a jury instruction on excusable homicide. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
