Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Austin v. State
Citations: 860 So. 2d 1224; 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 898; 2003 WL 22232971Docket: No. 2001-KA-00920-COA
Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; September 30, 2003; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
McKennsey Austin was indicted by the Coahoma County grand jury on charges of murder and drive-by shooting. On May 22, 2001, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, while the drive-by shooting charge resulted in a not guilty verdict. Following his conviction, Austin sought a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial, both of which were denied by the trial court on June 1, 2001. Austin filed a timely appeal, represented initially by Allan Shackelford, who indicated the appeal lacked merit per Turner v. State. The appeal is now being pursued by attorney Johnnie Walls, focusing on two main issues: (1) whether the trial judge's refusal to grant jury instruction D-4 on self-defense denied Austin a fair trial, and (2) whether the denial of jury instruction D-5 regarding an alternate theory of accident and misfortune also constituted a denial of a fair trial. The incident in question occurred on August 25, 2000, during a party in Friars Point, Mississippi, where Corinthian Jones was shot and killed shortly after midnight. Eyewitness testimonies indicated that prior to the shooting, Jones had an altercation with Austin. After a brief departure from the party, Austin and his cousin, Bervin Hopson, returned to find Jones and his friends. Witnesses described how Jones approached Austin’s vehicle, leading to Austin exiting the car and allegedly shooting Jones multiple times. The state pathologist confirmed that Jones died from a gunshot wound to the back of the neck, suggesting he was shot while turning away from the shooter. Austin contends that the trial judge erred by denying jury instruction D-4, which pertained to self-defense, and argues this warrants a new trial. The Court emphasizes that when evaluating the denial of a jury instruction, the overall context of all instructions given must be considered. A defendant is entitled to instructions representing their theory of the case, but such requests can be denied if they misstate the law, are adequately covered elsewhere, or lack evidentiary support. The trial judge rejected instruction D-4, citing insufficient evidence, noting modifications to an alternative instruction that did not require self-defense. Evidence indicated that Austin exited a moving vehicle and deliberately shot the victim, Jones, who was fleeing, undermining the self-defense claim. Additionally, Austin’s counsel found no reversible errors after a thorough review of the record. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial judge's decision regarding D-4 as valid due to the lack of evidence. Austin also argued against the denial of jury instruction D-5, related to the theory of accident or misfortune. The Court found that the evidence indicated Austin acted with intent and malice, dismissing his claims that provocation justified his lethal actions. Citing precedent, the Court reiterated that fear or perceived threat does not justify taking another's life. Thus, the Court deemed the denial of D-5 appropriate due to insufficient evidentiary support. The judgment from the Coahoma County Circuit Court, which convicted Austin of murder and imposed a life sentence, was affirmed, to run consecutively with any prior sentences, with costs of the appeal assigned to Coahoma County.