Davis v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00162-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00162-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-31-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of firearm by convicted felon & Murder - Necessity defense instruction - Weight of evidence - Exclusion of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-14-2009 Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court Judge: Isadore Patrick Disposition: Convicted of Count I, murder, and sentenced to life and Count II, felon in possession of a firearm, and sentenced to five years to run consecutively to the sentence in Count I, all in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections District Attorney: Richard Earl Smith, Jr. Case Number: 09,0025CRP |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Eric Davis |
ERIN ELIZABETH PRIDGEN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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: | Possession of firearm by convicted felon & Murder - Necessity defense instruction - Weight of evidence - Exclusion of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eric Davis was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and murder. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Necessity defense instruction Davis argues that the circuit court improperly denied his proposed necessity defense to the charge of felonious possession of a firearm. 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. There is no dispute as to Davis’s status as a convicted felon. Additionally, there was sufficient evidence to establish that Davis possessed a firearm on the night in question. In fact, Davis admitted that he had purchased a pistol to protect himself. A defendant can prove the defense of necessity if he shows the act charged was done to prevent a significant evil; there was no adequate alternative; and the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided. The circuit court properly denied Davis’s proposed necessity instruction, as Davis provided an insufficient factual basis to support the instruction. Although there was testimony about an alleged threat by the victim’s mother days before the shooting, there is no evidence showing the necessity of obtaining a firearm. For example, Davis could have called the police in response to the alleged threat, but he made no attempt to do so. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Davis argues that the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence because he acted in self-defense. Ultimately, the issue of justifiable self-defense presents a question of the weight and credibility of the evidence, rather than sufficiency, and is to be determined by the jury. The jury determined that Davis was guilty of murder, and there is nothing to suggest that allowing Davis’s conviction to stand will sanction an unconscionable injustice. Issue 3: Exclusion of evidence Davis argues that the circuit court erred in disallowing evidence regarding the presence of THC in the victim’s blood at the time of his autopsy, because this evidence suggests that the victim may have been under the influence of a mind-altering substance at the time of the shooting and was possibly the initial aggressor. Davis’s testimony that the victim threatened him with a pistol offers nothing to show that marijuana had any effect on the victim’s propensity for violence. Accordingly, the circuit court properly refused to allow this evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
