Hicks v. State

The trial court did not err in refusing to charge on voluntary manslaughter, because no evidence showed that the defendant acted out of a sudden, violent and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Deanthony Rashawn Hicks was convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal shooting of Michael Howard.1 He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his murder conviction, and that the trial court erred in refusing his requests to instruct the jury on justification by use of force in defense of others and voluntary manslaughter. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that a group of friends had congregated at a cul-de-sac in a residential subdivision when, following an argument between the victim and Tierra Vinson, appellant appeared from a corner of the street wielding a pistol. He approached the victim pointing the pistol in his face. The unarmed victim swatted at the firearm and then attempted to run away. As the victim turned and ran, appellant shot him three times in the back, killing him. Following the shooting, appellant ran toward a car occupied by the victim’s friend, Quatavius Berry, and attempted to shoot at Berry through the sun roof of his car. The gun misfired and appellant pistol-whipped Berry before Berry was able to drive away. Appellant left the scene along with co-defendant Soupaisith Ratana in Ratana’s vehicle.2

Berry could not identify appellant in a photographic lineup, but he did identify him as the shooter at trial. Witnesses Jamilah Hamilton and appellant’s former girlfriend, Keosha Cox, were present at the time of the shooting and identified appellant from a photographic lineup. Both Hamilton and Cox told police that appellant was running behind the victim at the time of the shooting, and Cox said he was responsible for the murder. At trial, however, both witnesses recanted their previous statements: Hamilton denied seeing appellant run after the victim and Cox claimed that she was intoxicated at the time.

Hicks v. State

The trial court did not err in refusing to charge on voluntary manslaughter, because no evidence showed that the defendant acted out of a sudden, violent and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report