Jackson v. State , 2009–KA–01799–COA.

Decision Date01 September 2011
Docket NumberNo. 2009–KA–01799–COA.,2009–KA–01799–COA.
PartiesDanny Jerard JACKSON, Appellantv.STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
CourtMississippi Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Julie L. Howell, R. Smith McNeal, Leslie S. Lee, Jackson, Philip W. Broadhead, attorneys for appellant.

Office of the Attorney General by Scott Stuart, Jackson, attorney for appellee.Before LEE, P.J., IRVING and GRIFFIS, JJ.IRVING, J., for the Court:

¶ 1. This appeal is from Danny Jerard Jackson's conviction, in the Harrison County Circuit Court, for murder and the resulting sentence of life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction, Jackson appeals and asserts that the circuit court entered improper jury instructions, erroneously allowed the State to impeach one of Jackson's witnesses with a prior conviction, and erred in denying Jackson's motions for a new trial and directed verdict.

¶ 2. We find no reversible error and, therefore, affirm the circuit court's judgment.

FACTS

¶ 3. On June 27, 2007, Jackson stabbed his wife's lover, Neco Strickland, to death outside a convenience store in Harrison County, Mississippi. Jackson became aware of his wife's infidelity over the course of several weeks or months.

¶ 4. On the night of Strickland's death, Jackson was at home when he realized that his wife, Angela, had left. Jackson had previously learned what type of car Strickland drove and that he lived at the River Ten Apartments near Orange Grove, Mississippi. When Jackson realized that Angela was gone, he went to the River Ten Apartments looking for her. Once there, he found Angela's car parked next to the car that he believed belonged to his wife's lover. Jackson began banging on apartment doors, looking for Angela. A security guard at the complex, Jack Powell, told Jackson to stop knocking on the doors. When Jackson informed Powell that he was looking for his wife, Powell told Jackson to go home. Powell testified that Jackson seemed calm and that he would have “called for some units if [Jackson] was mad or upset or something.” Powell maintained that Jackson was looking for Angela, not for her lover.

¶ 5. Jackson testified that he went to a nearby convenience store to buy beer and alcohol. As he was leaving, he saw Strickland. He claimed that he recognized Strickland from illicit pictures that Angela had taken of herself with Strickland. According to Jackson, Strickland was speaking on a cellular telephone, and as Jackson neared him, Jackson thought that he heard Angela's voice on the other end of the telephone. Jackson then went to his vehicle and retrieved a knife. In Jackson's statement that he gave to law enforcement shortly after the stabbing, he stated that he did not encounter Strickland in the store, but saw Strickland standing at a gas pump as he was leaving the gas station's parking lot.

¶ 6. In any event, Jackson confronted Strickland after he retrieved his knife. Things escalated quickly, and Jackson stabbed Strickland multiple times in front of several witnesses. At trial, Jackson claimed that Strickland punched him before he pulled the knife out; Jackson never made that allegation to any of the officers who questioned him after the stabbing. One of the witnesses to the stabbing, Mike Koplitz, testified that Jackson pulled the knife out from under his clothing and began stabbing Strickland “with extreme force” and “without much being said.” Strickland stumbled away from Jackson, across the road to a Subway parking lot, where he collapsed face down. Jackson got in his vehicle, drove across the road to where Strickland lay, and then exited the vehicle and stabbed at Strickland's back multiple times. Michael Hale, who witnessed the stabbing in the Subway parking lot, testified that he attempted to render aid to Strickland, but Strickland was non-responsive and gasping for air. Strickland died shortly thereafter from his wounds.

¶ 7. At trial, Jackson claimed that he “couldn't control” himself when he attacked Strickland: “Well, I went out to the pump and, you know, asked him what his name was. It blew up from there, you know. I couldn't control myself. My mind wasn't there. I wasn't myself.” Jackson claimed that he blacked out and could not remember anything that happened from the time of his initial confrontation with Strickland until sometime after he had finished stabbing Strickland. Shortly after the stabbing, Jackson was able to describe to Detective Ron Kirkland of the Gulfport Police Department what occurred; it was only at trial that Jackson claimed that he had blacked out after the stabbing.

¶ 8. After stabbing Strickland to death, Jackson reentered his vehicle and left the Subway parking lot. However, one of the witnesses was able to take down Jackson's license-plate number, and Jackson was later taken into custody and questioned by Detective Kirkland. Detective Kirkland first made contact with Jackson outside Jackson's apartment. At that time, Jackson told Detective Kirkland that he did not want to get his mother-in-law “involved”; Detective Kirkland testified that he then told Jackson that “no one was going to get in trouble unless they had anything to do with the crime.” According to the detective, Jackson then stated that “no one else had anything to do with it.” The knife that Jackson used to stab Strickland was recovered from the middle of a driveway outside a car dealership on June 28, 2007. Bloody clothes were recovered from a washing machine in Jackson's apartment. Samples were also taken from blood stains inside Jackson's vehicle. DNA testing of the blood on the knife, Jackson's car, and Jackson's clothes revealed that the blood came from Strickland. On December 17, 2007, Jackson was indicted for Strickland's murder.

¶ 9. Multiple eyewitnesses to the stabbing testified at Jackson's trial, as did law enforcement and a DNA expert. At the close of the State's case, Jackson moved for a directed verdict and requested that the case continue on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that the State had “proven at least a prima facie case of deliberate[-]design murder....”

¶ 10. Angela took the stand in Jackson's defense and testified regarding her affair with Strickland. Jackson also took the stand and testified that he did not intend to encounter Strickland at the gas station. Several character witnesses testified on Jackson's behalf. During deliberation on jury instructions, Jackson objected to the State's proposed instruction as to deliberate design. The circuit court overruled Jackson's objection and allowed the instruction; the court also refused Jackson's proposed instruction as to deliberate design. Thereafter, the jury found Jackson guilty of deliberate-design murder. The circuit court sentenced Jackson to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. It is from that judgment that Jackson appeals.

¶ 11. Additional facts, as necessary, will be related during our analysis and discussion of the issues.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES

1. Jury Instructions

¶ 12. When reviewing jury instructions, we read the instructions “as a whole to determine whether the jury was fully and fairly instructed according to the applicable law.” Clark v. State, 40 So.3d 531, 544 (¶ 36) (Miss.2010) (citing Davis v. State, 18 So.3d 842, 847 (¶ 14) (Miss.2009)). “In other words, if all instructions taken as a whole fairly, but not necessarily perfectly, announce the applicable rules of law, no error results.” Id. (quoting Davis, 18 So.3d at 847 (¶ 14)). Although Jackson had the right to present his theory of the case, that “right is not absolute.” Id. (citing Davis, 18 So.3d at 847 (¶ 14)). Specifically, the circuit court “may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Id. (quoting Spires v. State, 10 So.3d 477, 483 (¶ 28) (Miss.2009)).

¶ 13. Jackson presents two complaints regarding the circuit court's jury instructions. The first is that the circuit court improperly denied his proposed instruction on the cooling-off period and deliberate-design murder. The second is that the State's instruction, which was granted, improperly defined a time limit for deliberate-design murder. In the interest of completeness, we will quote extensively from the jury instructions in this case.

¶ 14. Jackson's proposed instruction on the cooling-off period, D–10, reads as follows:

It is the decision of the Jury whether the Defendant, DANNY JERARD JACKSON, acted in a “heat of passion[,] and if the Defendant received information that made him act in a “heat of passion[,] and not with deliberate design, it is a jury question whether there has been enough time for the Defendant to cool off from his initial state of mind that would be raised to a “heat of passion [.”] Whether there has been cooling time is eminently a question of fact, varying with the particular case and with the condition of the party. There are some provocations which, with persons of even temperament, lose their power in a few moments; while there are others which rankle in the breast for days and even weeks. Men's temperaments also very [sic] greatly as to the duration of hot blood; and it must be remembered that we must determine the questions of deliberate design in each case, not by the standard of an ideal “reasonable man[,”] but by that of the party to whom the deliberate design is imputed.

However, this was not the only instruction that touched on “heat of passion” and deliberate design. Instruction S–1, which was given by the circuit court, states in part:

The Court instructs the Jury that the Defendant, DANNY JERARD JACKSON, has been charged in the Indictment with the crime of Murder for having caused the death of Neco F. Strickland, with the deliberate design to effect the death of Neco F. Strickland. If you find...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Brisco v. State, 2018-KA-01237-COA
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 1 Octubre 2019
    ...assessing the claim that a conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence, we defer to the discretion of the trial judge. Jackson v. State , 68 So. 3d 709, 720 (¶37) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). "[W]e will not order a new trial unless convinced that the verdict is so contrary to the overwhe......
  • Fortune v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 19 Marzo 2013
    ...the jury instructions “as a whole to determine whether the jury was fully and fairly instructed according to the applicable law.” Jackson v. State, 68 So.3d 709, 712–13 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Clark v. State, 40 So.3d 531, 544 (¶ 36) (Miss.2010)). “[I]f all [the] instructions tak......
  • Pace v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 4 Febrero 2020
    ...the instructions ‘as a whole to determine whether the jury was fully and fairly instructed according to the applicable law.’ " Jackson v. State , 68 So. 3d 709, 712-13 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Clark v. State , 40 So. 3d 531, 544 (¶36) (Miss. 2010) ). "A defendant is entitled to ......
  • Blythe v. State, 2012–KA–00652–COA.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 26 Junio 2014
    ...must be read “as a whole to determine whether the jury was fully and fairly instructed according to the applicable law.” Jackson v. State, 68 So.3d 709, 712–13 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Clark v. State, 40 So.3d 531, 544 (¶ 36) (Miss.2010)). In Brown v. State, 799 So.2d 870, 871 (¶ ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT