Randy Gale Phillips v. James Rose

Citations: 690 F.2d 79; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25022Docket: 82-5001

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; October 6, 1982; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Randy Gale Phillips appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, challenging the jury instructions given by the state trial judge during his murder trial. Phillips contends that the jury was improperly instructed that they could presume malice in homicides unless the defendant provided rebuttal evidence, which he argues violates his due process rights as established in Sandstrom v. Montana. 

Phillips was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to fifty years and one day. The Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged that one of the jury instructions was erroneous, but maintained that the overall instructions were appropriate. The Tennessee Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal. In his federal habeas petition, the District Court also recognized the isolated error but concluded that the instructions did not shift the burden of proof to Phillips.

The Court of Appeals found that the jury instructions indeed created a presumption that shifted the burden of persuasion regarding malice to Phillips, contrary to the principles outlined in Sandstrom. The court rejected the state's argument that other jury instructions could mitigate this error, stating they did not negate the presumption of malice that had been established. The court deemed the error not harmless, indicating it could have influenced the jury's deliberations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus.

Phillips presented defenses of self-defense and accident in a shooting incident involving his neighbor, Freddie Lee Berry. Evidence conflicted on whether the shooting was accidental, which would negate malice. Earlier that evening, Phillips and Berry had fought, and later, Phillips fired shots to draw Berry outside. Dorsey Huckabee, who intervened in the earlier fight, returned to confront Phillips, who struck Huckabee with his shotgun as Huckabee reached for his pocket, allegedly implying he had a weapon. Phillips claimed the gun discharged unintentionally as he turned. Discrepancies existed regarding Phillips' movements and whether Huckabee's hands were in his pockets at the time. The jury was tasked with evaluating witness credibility.

The court noted that, unlike in a similar case, Phillips did not concede to the crime's essential element, asserting that the evidence did not overwhelmingly prove malice. Consequently, the court found that any instructional errors regarding malice were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of the District Court's judgment and a remand for a conditional writ. Phillips also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, but this issue was not addressed on appeal. The state cited an unpublished opinion that the court found irrelevant to the current case. It was noted that jury instructions that could be perceived as shifting the burden of proof were defective, despite the jury being informed that evidence could rebut the presumption of malice. 

Additionally, the instructions indicated that recklessness could support an involuntary manslaughter charge, while second-degree murder required evidence that Phillips aimed at Huckabee before shooting. The judge defined malice as derived from "willful recklessness," emphasizing the significance of whether Phillips stepped back before the shooting, which was a pivotal point in determining the case outcome.