Booker v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CT-02054-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-02054-COA ; 2008-KA-02054-COA ; 2008-CT-02054-SCT ; 2008-CT-02054-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-23-2011 Opinion Author: Presiding Justice Carlson Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Weathersby rule |
|
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 - Weathersby rule |
| Summary of the Facts: | Chad Booker was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to twenty years, with ten years suspended and five years of post release supervision. Booker appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Booker argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict of acquittal under the Weathersby rule. The Weathersby rule states that where the defendant or the defendant’s witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide, their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge. If the defendant’s testimony satisfies all the elements of murder or manslaughter, the defendant would not be entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal, as this testimony would be the basis for a valid conviction, and the Weathersby rule would not apply. Weathersby is inapplicable in this case for two reasons: Booker’s version of the incident satisfies the elements of manslaughter, and Booker’s version is substantially contradicted in material particulars by credible witnesses, including the prosecution’s witnesses, by the physical facts at the crime scene, and by the facts of common knowledge. Based on Booker’s testimony that he had struck the victim three times in the head, the jury could have concluded that Booker did not act in necessary self-defense and was guilty of manslaughter. Booker testified that he had retaliated with his fists. Whether a defendant’s fists constitute a deadly weapon is a jury question. Alternatively, the jury could have found that Booker had killed the victim in a cruel or unusual manner. Booker’s striking the victim three times sufficiently presented a jury question as to whether Booker’s actions were cruel or unusual. Booker admitted that he had grabbed the victim, a sixty-one-year-old man in less-than-good health, by the wrists, had pulled the victim towards him and had punched him. He struck him, not once but three times on the side of the head. Uncontradicted physical evidence showed that the victim died of blunt-force trauma to his head. On the other hand, evidence in the record substantially contradicts Booker’s claim of self-defense and supports the manslaughter conviction. Evidence in the record supports the State’s theory that Booker attacked the victim while the victim was seated in the Rhino. Expert testimony provided that Booker’s version of the events was “very unlikely.” Accordingly, this expert testimony substantially contradicted Booker’s version of the incident and created a question for the jury to resolve. Photographs of the crime scene received into evidence and the location of the victim’s glasses also substantially contradicted Booker’s version of the incident. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
