Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; December 17, 2018; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
Richard Cooley was found guilty of aggravated assault for striking Dustin Cooley in the head with a shotgun butt during a confrontation outside a convenience store in Janice, Mississippi. He was sentenced to fifteen years in custody, with three years to serve and twelve years suspended, along with fines and restitution. Richard appealed, raising three issues: the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on his defense-of-others claim, ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting that instruction, and that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The court affirmed the conviction.
The incident stemmed from ongoing animosity between two unrelated Cooley families, which escalated after a prior hunting incident involving land disputes. On November 15, 2014, Wesley Cooley, Richard's son, followed a truck he believed was driven by the son of the opposing family, leading to the confrontation. The truck was occupied by Tristan and Wes, who had been involved in the earlier dispute. Fearing for his son's safety, Richard intervened after hearing that Dustin was armed and allegedly preparing to shoot Wesley. In the lead-up to the confrontation, Dustin and Tristan, armed with a rifle and a pistol, were instructed by Adam Cooley to hide the rifle upon arriving at the store to avoid legal trouble.
Wesley arrived at the Janice store and observed Dustin walking with a rifle toward an abandoned building. Unaware of each other's identities, Wesley approached Dustin, inquiring about his actions. Dustin, assuming Wesley was pursuing his brother, responded with a question of his own. At that moment, Richard, another individual in a truck, arrived, identified himself as a federal marshal, and ordered Dustin to drop his weapon. Dustin refused, asserting he had a permit for the rifle. As tensions escalated, Wesley and Richard attempted to seize Dustin's gun, which led to a physical confrontation where Richard struck Dustin multiple times with the butt of his shotgun, causing injury. Despite being on the ground, Dustin maintained that his rifle was always pointed upward and he did not threaten anyone with it.
Adam, who was observing from his truck nearby, witnessed the altercation and heard Richard's commands to Dustin. He saw Wesley and Richard struggle with Dustin over the rifle and intervened by firing a warning shot into the air. This prompted Richard to aim his weapon at Adam, leading to a struggle between them. The altercation was ultimately diffused by Mitchell Cooley, who intervened and took control of the situation, securing the firearms involved. Throughout the incident, Adam confirmed that Dustin never pointed his gun at anyone or made any threats.
Richard testified that he arrived at the Janice store coincidentally during a confrontation involving Wesley and Dustin, observing Dustin pointing a long gun at Wesley. Richard perceived Wesley was threatened and exited his unarmed truck, asserting to Dustin that he would not allow him to shoot his son. After identifying himself as a retired federal officer, Richard retrieved a shotgun from his truck. During the altercation, Wesley, unarmed, disarmed Dustin of the long gun and was threatened by Dustin with a pistol. Richard then struck Dustin with his shotgun, enabling them to take the pistol away from him. Wesley corroborated Richard's account, stating he had gone to confront Tristan's mother and was unaware of the impending altercation. Deputy Jeremy McSwain responded to the scene, noting Dustin had a head injury, which was later treated as blunt-force trauma with several scalp lacerations.
Richard argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on a defense-of-others theory, despite not requesting such an instruction during the trial. The court holds significant discretion in jury instructions, and appellate review assesses whether the instructions provided were fair and comprehensive. A defense-of-others instruction is appropriate when a defendant believes force is necessary to prevent imminent harm to another individual.
The primary issue regarding jury instructions is ensuring that each party's theory of the case is adequately presented to the jury. Richard argues that the jury instructions failed to encompass his defense of others theory, as he claimed to have defended Wesley by striking Dustin with a shotgun. He asserts that the evidence supported this theory, but the instructions only addressed self-defense. The jury received three self-defense instructions, which outlined justifiable actions in self-defense and clarified the state's burden to prove otherwise.
Mississippi law does not obligate trial courts to sua sponte provide additional jury instructions beyond what the parties present. However, Richard contends that a trial court must modify instructions if they do not align with the evidence, referencing Guster v. State, where a conviction was reversed due to a similar failure. In Guster, the court found that while self-defense was correctly instructed, it did not reflect the evidence of defense of others, which warranted reforming the instruction.
Contrasting with Guster, the instructions provided in Richard's case were consistent with the evidence presented, which showed conflicting accounts of who initiated the aggression and whether Richard acted in self-defense or to protect Wesley. Testimony indicated Richard might have been trying to disarm Dustin for his own safety, and conflicting evidence existed regarding whether Dustin threatened Wesley. The three self-defense instructions were deemed properly formulated, and there was no requirement for the trial court to reform them or to introduce a defense-of-others instruction based solely on partial supporting testimony.
Richard argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for not including a defense-of-others instruction in the self-defense instructions. To establish ineffective assistance, the benchmark is whether counsel's conduct undermined the adversarial process to the extent that the trial result cannot be deemed just, following the two-prong Strickland test. The first prong requires demonstrating deficient performance by counsel, overcoming the presumption that counsel's actions were reasonable trial strategy. The second prong necessitates showing a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have differed but for the deficient performance.
Richard claims that his counsel failed to request a defense-of-others instruction, asserting that such an instruction was warranted based on the evidence, which the State does not dispute. He contends this deficiency prejudiced his defense, as it likely affected the trial's outcome. However, the court notes that while counsel may have been deficient, Richard did not sufficiently demonstrate how this omission prejudiced his case, referencing a precedent where no ineffective assistance was found due to a lack of supporting evidence for an alibi instruction.
Overall, the court concludes that Richard did not meet the second prong of Strickland, indicating that the failure to include the defense-of-others instruction, while potentially deficient, did not adversely impact the trial's outcome.
Richard's request for a defense-of-others instruction during his trial was denied because he failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that this instruction would have altered the trial's outcome. The court noted that the decision not to offer such an instruction likely fell within trial counsel's strategic choices, as it could have undermined Richard's primary self-defense argument. The defense-of-others theory was minimally supported in witness testimonies and only briefly mentioned in closing arguments.
Richard also argued that his conviction contradicted the overwhelming weight of the evidence and claimed the trial judge abused discretion by denying a new trial. Reversal of a verdict on these grounds is rare and requires evidence to heavily preponderate against the verdict. Richard contended that both he and Wesley had reasonable grounds to fear for their safety from Dustin, who brandished a rifle. However, testimony was conflicting regarding whether Dustin threatened anyone with the weapon.
The jury ultimately sided with the accounts presented by Dustin and Adam, determining that Richard misinterpreted the situation and acted as the aggressor. The jury was instructed on self-defense, which included the consideration that Dustin was within his rights to be in the location with the rifle. The jury concluded that Richard did not act in self-defense, as he provoked Dustin and escalated the confrontation by striking him with a shotgun. The court found that the weight of the evidence supported the jury's verdict, and therefore upheld the conviction. The judgment was affirmed by the presiding judges.
