Chandler v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-KA-01321-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01321-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-07-2006
Opinion Author: Easley, J.
Holding: Conviction of Murder and Sentence of Life Imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Murder - Culpable negligence manslaughter instruction - Reasonable self-defense instruction - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c)
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Dissenting Author : Graves, J., Dissents Without Separate Written Opinion.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-14-2005
Appealed from: Clay County Circuit Court
Judge: JAMES T. KITCHENS, JR.
Disposition: Chandler was convicted of murder by the jury and sentenced by the trial court to serve a term of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The trial court denied all of Chandler’s post-trial motions.
District Attorney: FORREST ALLGOOD
Case Number: 8491

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Joey Montrell Chandler




ROBERT B. McDUFF



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS  

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 - Culpable negligence manslaughter instruction - Reasonable self-defense instruction - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c)

Summary of the Facts: Joey Chandler was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Culpable negligence manslaughter instruction Chandler argues that the court erred by denying his requested instruction on culpable negligence manslaughter, because it is a lesser included offence of depraved heart murder. Lesser included offense instructions should be given if there is an evidentiary basis in the record that would permit a jury rationally to find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense and to acquit him of the greater offense. Manslaughter by culpable negligence is such gross negligence as to evince a wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of human life, or such an indifference to the consequences of an act under the surrounding circumstances as to render such conduct tantamount to willfulness. The facts and testimony presented do not support the grant of a culpable negligence manslaughter instruction. Three of the four witnesses present in the woods at the time the victim was shot testified at trial. None of the witnesses stated that there were any arguments or that Chandler and the victim struggled. In fact, all witnesses stated that Chandler and the victim were facing each other in the woods. Chandler deliberately brought the gun into the woods. The gun was fired three times. Since the gun was a revolver, the gun’s trigger actually had to be pulled three times. Two of the shots hit the victim causing his death. The facts do not support a culpable negligence manslaughter instruction. Issue 2: Reasonable self-defense instruction Chandler argues that the court erred by refusing jury instructions concerning reasonable self-defense, because the jury could have concluded that any self-defense was reasonable because he was in fear and was attacked by the victim. If a person provokes a difficulty, arming himself in advance, and intending, if necessary, to use his weapon and overcome his adversary, he becomes the aggressor, and deprives himself of the right of self-defense. Here, the evidence did not support a reasonable self-defense instruction. Chandler never testified that his actions were in self-defense. The facts show that Chandler deliberately armed himself on the day of the shooting. Therefore, Chandler was the aggressor. None of the witnesses saw the victim with a gun. None of the witnesses stated that Chandler or the victim were arguing. All of the witnesses stated that Chandler and the victim were standing facing each other. What is more, the jury received an imperfect self-defense jury instruction and an accident or misfortune instruction. Thus, the trial court more than adequately instructed the jury. Issue 3: Hearsay Chandler argues that the court erred by excluding certain statements as hearsay under M.R.E. 801(c). Chandler was not allowed to testify that someone told Chandler that the victim was out to get him. In addition, Chandler was not allowed to testify that on the same day another person told Chandler a specific rumor. The record shows that Chandler testified on numerous occasions that he had heard “rumors” and that because of the rumors he did not feel safe, and therefore, he borrowed his uncle’s gun to protect himself. He also testified that at numerous times during the day he was afraid of the victim and afraid of what the victim might do. Therefore, Chandler was able to get this information before the jury. While Chandler argues that the first statement was not hearsay because the statement was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that the victim was going to get Chandler, it was in fact being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. With regard to the second statement, Chandler made no argument before the trial court, and thus, he is procedurally barred on appeal.


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