Carter v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01564-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-28-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Notice of jury instructions - URCCC 3.07 Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-07-2002 Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: MANSLAUGHTER: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF 20 YEARS IN THE MDOC, WITH 15 YEARS TO SERVE, BALANCE OF 5 YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION. District Attorney: G. Gilmore Martin Case Number: 02,0075-CR-V |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Reginald Wayne Carter |
CLARENCE WHITAKER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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: | Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Notice of jury instructions - URCCC 3.07 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Reginald Carter was indicted and tried for murder but was convicted of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Carter argues that the evidence that he was acting in self-defense was so persuasive and uncontradicted that a verdict of acquittal was the only one that a reasonable jury fairly assessing the evidence could return. Self-defense, in order to constitute a successful defense to a criminal prosecution, requires that the defendant act in response to an urgent actual threat or on a reasonable belief that such threat is actual and imminent. The reasonableness of the defendant’s actions is normally a matter for the jury sitting as finders of fact. There was eyewitness testimony tending to indicate that the victim was rummaging in the trunk of a vehicle. Another witness testified that Carter drew the pistol, pointed it at the victim, made what could be construed as provocative or threatening remarks, and began walking toward the victim before firing three fatal shots. The jury was properly instructed on the law and resolved this issue by concluding that Carter, beyond any reasonable doubt, was not acting in necessary self-defense when he purposely fired three gunshots at close range into his victim, causing his death. Issue 2: Notice of jury instructions Carter argues that he was prejudiced by the State's failure to provide him with a copy of its proposed jury instructions twenty-four hours prior to trial in compliance with URCCC 3.07. Failing to explicitly follow the deadlines of Rule 3.07 does not automatically constitute reversible error, but the defendant must show actual prejudice arising from the delayed service. Carter claims that his trial strategy was detrimentally affected by his lack of knowledge that the State intended to seek a lesser-included offense instruction on manslaughter. However, the law is plain that a defendant has no recognized right to block the prosecution in such effort. Absent any showing of other possible alternative theories of defense he might have raised and based on the fact that the theory of self-defense on the facts of this case would appear to be substantially identical whether the jury was deliberating a charge of murder or of manslaughter, Carter has failed to make the necessary showing of prejudice to his defense arising from the State’s failure to file its proposed instructions in a more timely manner. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
