Hull v. State
| Decision Date | 28 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 49922,49922 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | Bobbie HULL v. STATE OF Mississippi. |
King & Arnold, James H. Arnold, Jr., Durant, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gilfoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before SMITH, BROOM and LEE, JJ.
LEE, Justice, for the Court.
Bobbie Hull was indicted and tried for murder in the Circuit Court of Attala County. From a conviction of manslaughter and sentence of twelve (12) years she appeals here.
Appellant assigns and argues the following errors in the trial below:
(1) The trial court erred in refusing appellant's requested Instructions D-7, D-8, and D-9.
(2) The trial court erred in granting the State's Instruction S-3.
Bobbie Hull, a 28-year-old female, was married to Ernest Hull. Five children were born to the union. For a long period of time, there had been domestic trouble between the Hulls. He frequently struck and threatened her, and, at the time of the homicide, they were separated. Appellant lived in her mother's house with the children and Hull visited them and had the children visit in his home.
About 6:15 p. m. on August 29, 1975, Hull drove to appellant's home and stopped his car about five (5) feet from a window in which she was sitting. Appellant testified that she told him not to come into the house, that the children were scared and were crying, and that he could come back and get them the next evening. She further testified that he said, "He wasn't going to do it, that he was coming in and get the boys (all five children were boys) and he was going to kill me." Hull got out of the car, went around same and started toward the gate. He spoke to people who were sitting on the front porch of a house across the street approximately forty (40) feet away. Those persons did not hear any conversation between appellant and deceased, except one witness, who was in the yard, stated she heard appellant tell him not to come into the house and to go away. When Hull got to the gate, appellant appeared at the door about fifteen (15) feet away and shot him in the right chest with a .38 caliber revolver. He turned and fled toward the house across the street where the people were sitting and, as he ran, appellant followed him and shot a second time, but missed him. Hull jumped up onto the neighbor's porch, fell face forward and expired.
I.
Did the court err in refusing appellant Instructions Nos. D-7, D-8 and D-9?
The above instructions all deal with defense of a person's habitation. Appellant relies upon the case of Bowen v. State, 164 Miss. 225, 144 So. 230 (1932). In that case, one McFerrin had been molesting Mrs. Bowen, repeatedly came to her home in the absence of her husband and made lewd proposals to her. She warned him not to come back. On the occasion of the homicide, McFerrin had entered her home. She obtained a shotgun and made him leave. He went out one door and started back in the house through another door with the Mississippi Code Annotated § 97-3-15 (1972) defines justifiable homicide as being " . . . (e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling-house in which such person shall be; . . . "
avowed purpose of raping her. It was at that point when he was entering the house that she shot him. In Bowen, the State was granted an instruction on murder and no manslaughter instruction was asked for or granted. The Court held that, at most, the facts of the case could not support a verdict of any conviction greater than manslaughter and that the murder instruction entirely ignored the defense of habitation. No instruction on defense of habitation was asked for or granted.
Instruction No. D-10 (Appendix I), granted at the request of appellant, advised the jury that she had a right to keep a pistol in her house and to kill the deceased, if it reasonably appeared to her that he was undertaking to force an entrance into her house with the design to do her some great personal injury. That instruction presented the defense of habitation issue and the last part " . . . with the design to do her some great personal injury" followed the evidence of the appellant to the effect that "He was coming in . . . and he was going to kill me." The instruction adequately set forth appellant's right to protect her domicile from unlawful entry. Ross v. State, 234 Miss. 309, 106 So.2d 56 (1958).
Instruction No. D-6 (Appendix II) told the jury that, if they believed the deceased was larger and stronger than defendant (he weighed 260 lbs., she weighed 120 lbs.), and that she was liable to receive serious bodily injury at his hands, she was justified in shooting him to defend herself from attack, even though the deceased was wholly unarmed. Under the facts of this case, the jury having been instructed on the defense of habitation and on self-defense, it was not error to refuse the other three instructions relating to defense of habitation.
II.
Did the court err in granting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. State
...with murder, even if erroneous." Carter v. State, 402 So.2d 817, 819 (Miss.1981); Moss v. State, 386 So.2d 1129 (Miss.1980); Hull v. State, 350 So.2d 60 (1977). The same reasoning applies here. This Court holds, therefore, that, where the defendant has been convicted of the lesser included ......
-
Gray v. State
...454 So.2d 445, 462 (Miss.1984). This is true even if the erroneous instruction deals with elements of the crime. See, e.g., Hull v. State, 350 So.2d 60 (Miss.1977). It is clear, however, that under Rule 42 this Court may raise an objection to a jury instruction in order to prevent manifest ......
-
Carter v. State, 52671
...dealing with murder, even if erroneous. Moss v. State, 386 So.2d 1129 (Miss.1980), Ray v. State, 381 So.2d 1032 (Miss.1980), Hull v. State, 350 So.2d 60 (Miss.1977), King v. State, 315 So.2d 925 (Miss.1975). Furthermore, the jury was amply instructed on accident, a theory of appellant's def......
-
Shedwick v. State, 54261
...with murder, even if erroneous." Carter v. State, 402 So.2d 817, 819 (Miss.1981); Moss v. State, 386 So.2d 1129 (Miss.1980); Hull v. State, 350 So.2d 60 (Miss.1977). However, we do not reach this line of cases because we are of the opinion there was evidence to support the murder Shedwick's......