Taylor v. State
| Docket Number: | 2017-CT-01596-SCT Linked Case(s): 2017-KA-01596-COA ; 2017-KA-01596-COA ; 2017-CT-01596-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-09-2020 Opinion Author: Part I: Justice Beam; Part II: Justice Maxwell Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Pre-arming instruction Judge(s) Concurring: Kitchens and King, P.JJ., Coleman, Maxwell and Chamberlin, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Dissenting Author : Randolph, C.J. Dissent Joined By : Ishee, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-20-2016 Appealed from: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: HON. CHRISTOPHER LOUIS SCHMIDT Disposition: Found guilty of first-degree murder. District Attorney: JOEL SMITH Case Number: B2401-2016-102 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dante O. Taylor a/k/a Dante O'Bryan Taylor a/k/a Dante O'Brien Taylor a/k/a Dante Taylor |
OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER: GEORGE T. HOLMES, HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: ABBIE EASON KOONCE | ||
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: | Murder - Pre-arming instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dante Taylor was convicted of first-degree murder. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The jury received instructions on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, imperfect self-defense manslaughter, and self-defense. Additionally, a pre-arming instruction was granted to the State, instruction S-13. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Dante’s self-defense claim was not preempted by the granting of a pre-arming instruction. Pre-arming instructions have been strongly criticized in a long line of Mississippi cases, allowing the instruction only in those extremely rare incidents where the instruction was supported by the evidence. In those cases, the record was uncontradicted that the defendants armed themselves with the intent to initiate a confrontation. While evidence suggested that Dante armed himself after hearing from his mother that the victim wanted to kill him and after he had exchanged words with the victim, just as much evidence shows that the victim armed himself to protect not only himself but also his sister. Conflicting evidence was adduced regarding whether Dante or the victim was the initial aggressor. The evidence the State adduced suggesting that Dante had armed himself with the intent of confronting the victim does not make clear whether he had done so for his own protection or whether he was trying to initiate a confrontation. The State acknowledged to the trial court that it was “convoluted” as to who was the “provoker or aggressor.” The pre-arming instruction (or self-defense estoppel instruction) contained no qualification and likely confused the jury. Without this proviso, the instruction had the very real danger of compelling or constraining the jury to believe that whatever happened between Dante and the victim at the time of the shooting was irrelevant or inconsequential because Dante was armed and had voiced vague threats to others that he was going to punish the victim. Thus, the trial court erred by granting instruction S-13 and Dante is entitled to a new trial. The pre-arming instruction is abolished and will be unavailable on remand. Instead, the trial court is instructed to instruct the jury on self-defense when the evidence supports it. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
