Sands v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-01186-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-01186-SCT ; 2009-KA-01186-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-03-2011 Opinion Author: Dickinson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter, Murder & Aggravated assault - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-16-2009 Appealed from: Jefferson Davis County Circuit Court Judge: Prentiss Greene Harrell Disposition: The judge weighed evidence against his earlier decision to conduct voir dire on the jury during trial and the answers he received. Then he denied the motion for a new trial. District Attorney: Haldon J. Kittrell Case Number: 2007-64H |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Rodney Sands and Aqui Demetrius Rhodes |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: GEORGE T. HOLMES, LESLIE S. LEE, SHARON D. HENDERSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS, SCOTT STUART | ||
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, Murder & Aggravated assault - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Rodney Sands and Aqui Rhodes were tried and convicted of manslaughter and murder, respectively; both were also charged with and convicted of aggravated assault. They appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Sands argues that his motion for directed verdict should have been granted because there was no evidence that he fired a shot and no evidence to support the heat-of-passion element of manslaughter. To find Sands guilty on any of the counts of the indictment, the jury had to conclude from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sands had shot the victims. And on the manslaughter charges, the State was required to prove that Sands had killed the victims without malice, in the heat of passion by use of a deadly weapon without authority of law, and not in necessary self-defense. McNair, the only surviving victim, testified that he heard shots coming from Rhodes’s side of the car, which, according to the evidence, was not in the same vicinity as where he momentarily saw Sands crouched at the back of his car, the Lexus. McNair added that, after the shooting started, he looked again towards the Lexus and saw Sands at the back of the Lexus with a “small” gun, but he never at any point saw Sands shoot the weapon. McNair’s testimony that he had seen Sands crouched behind his car with a gun was the State’s only proof that Sands shot anyone. This is wholly insufficient, and particularly so in light of the following evidence: All of the bullet fragments and shell casings found by law enforcement were either .40 or .45 caliber; all of the .40 caliber casings were traced to a single gun; McInnis was armed with a .40 caliber Kel-Tec pistol; all of the .45 caliber casings were traced to a single gun; Rhodes was armed with a .45 caliber gun; both McInnis and Rhodes had fired their guns. Therefore, Sands’ convictions must be reversed. Rhodes was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault. Rhodes argues insufficient evidence was shown of the elements of “malice aforethought” and “deliberate design.” It is undisputed that Rhodes did not have the authority of law, that both victims had been shot and killed with a firearm, and that Rhodes had shot his firearm multiple times at the victims. McNair testified that the confrontation with Rhodes was based on an earlier break-in, and Rhodes had believed the victims were responsible. Additionally, both McNair and Rhodes testified that Rhodes had possessed and fired a gun. The testimony on these two points, coupled with all reasonable inferences favorable to the prosecution, meet the standard for the “deliberate design” element. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
