Thomas v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00708-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00708-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-30-2011 Opinion Author: Chief Judge Lee Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Jury instruction - Section 97-3-15(3) - Castle doctrine Judge(s) Concurring: Griffis, P.J., Myers, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Russell, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, P.J., Barnes and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-03-2009 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AND TO PAY A $5,000 FINE Case Number: CR-2008-0505CD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Justin Vanques Thomas |
JOHN KEITH PERRY JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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 - Jury instruction - Section 97-3-15(3) - Castle doctrine |
| Summary of the Facts: | Justin Thomas was found guilty of manslaughter. He was sentenced to fifteen years followed by five years of post-release supervision and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Thomas argues that the trial court erred in refusing a jury instruction which tracks the language of section 97-3-15(3), also known as the “Castle Doctrine.” The trial court found the instruction was not warranted because Thomas retreated to his vehicle after firing a weapon on someone else’s property, and the trial judge thought Thomas’s defense was covered by the self-defense jury instruction. In order to find that the jury instruction should have been given, it must have had a factual basis in the evidence. To allege a factual basis under the Castle Doctrine, proof of two prongs from section 97-3-15 must be presented. First, under subsection (4), if the defendant is in a place where he had a right to be, is not the immediate provoker and aggressor, and is not engaged in unlawful activity, he has no duty to retreat before using defensive force. And second, if the jury finds that any of the circumstances in subsection (3) are satisfied, the defendant who uses such defensive force is presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm or the commission of a felony upon him. Thomas was in a parking lot where he had a right to be when the incident occurred. A question arises as to whether Thomas could be considered the immediate provoker and aggressor since he fired a gun in the air. However, a fact question is presented for the jury as to whether or not the attack on Thomas once he entered his car started a separate chain of events. Thus, Thomas was entitled to a jury instruction that properly covered his theory of defense under the Castle Doctrine. The State argues that the proposed Castle-Doctrine instruction was covered by the self-defense instruction. Although the self-defense instruction is similar, it does not specifically address the commission of a felony against Thomas in his vehicle or whether the crowd was attempting to remove Thomas unlawfully from the vehicle against his will to cause him harm. Accordingly, the case is remanded for a new trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
