May v. State
460 So. 2d 778 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Weathersby rule, which generally requires a jury to accept a defendant's uncontradicted self-defense testimony where the defendant is the sole eyewitness, does not apply if the testimony is substantially contradicted by credible evidence, physical facts, or prior inconsistent statements made to law enforcement.
Facts:
- Navis Jane May and John D. May were married in October 1960 and had lived in a trailer home for most of the past five years.
- At the time of the incident, John D. May was 70 years old, and Navis Jane May was 52 and suffered from arthritis.
- On Saturday evening, February 27, 1982, Navis Jane May shot and killed her husband, John D. May, at their home.
- Navis Jane May described her husband as a battering man who drank heavily and had threatened to kill her in the past, repeating those threats on the night of the shooting.
- Navis Jane May testified at trial that she fired the fatal shot from behind a deep freeze as her angry, drunken husband approached her with a walking stick, after warning shots had failed.
- Deputy Sheriff Ernest Burnham responded to Navis Jane May's call, where she identified herself and stated, 'I've just killed my husband.'
- Upon Deputy Burnham's arrival, Navis Jane May appeared intoxicated and gave conflicting accounts of the shooting, first claiming it was an accidental shooting during a struggle, and later stating she retrieved the gun after an argument and shot John D. May as he was trying to leave.
- Deputy Burnham's examination of the scene revealed no footprints in the muddy area where Navis Jane May claimed to have stood, and the angle of the fatal bullet contradicted her account of her position.
- Officer Kenneth Dickerson testified that when he and Deputy Burnham arrived, they found a pair of bedroom slippers clutched in John D. May's hands, contradicting Navis Jane May's claim that he was advancing with a walking stick.
Procedural Posture:
- Navis Jane May was indicted for murder.
- The case proceeded to trial in the Circuit Court of Rankin County, Mississippi, on October 18, 1982.
- The jury found Navis Jane May guilty of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter.
- The Circuit Court sentenced May to a term of eight years.
- Navis Jane May, as the appellant, appealed her conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Weathersby rule, which mandates acceptance of a defendant's uncontradicted self-defense testimony, apply when physical evidence, prior inconsistent statements to police, and other witness testimony materially contradict the defendant's account, thereby precluding a jury verdict of manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, J.
No, the Weathersby rule does not apply to mandate acceptance of a defendant's self-defense testimony when that testimony is substantially contradicted by credible evidence, physical facts, or prior inconsistent statements. The court explained that while the Weathersby rule requires accepting the defendant's reasonable testimony if they are the only eyewitness and it is uncontradicted, the rule explicitly allows for rejection if there are circumstances that materially contradict the defendant's version. In Navis Jane May's case, Deputy Burnham's testimony regarding her conflicting statements to law enforcement immediately after the shooting, his observations of the physical scene (lack of footprints, bullet angle), and Officer Dickerson's testimony about the slippers in the victim's hands provided substantial material contradictions to May's self-defense claim. Therefore, the jury was not compelled to accept her version of events. The trial court correctly denied May's motions for a peremptory instruction, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a new trial because there was sufficient evidence for reasonable jurors to find her guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. Regarding prosecutorial conduct, the court found no reversible error because the trial judge sustained objections to improper questions and admonished the jury to disregard them, and there was no evidence of bad faith. Lastly, the manslaughter instruction was proper and supported by evidence, allowing the jury to determine if the killing was 'unnecessary' as opposed to 'necessary' self-defense. The court acknowledged the 'battered wife syndrome' but emphasized that it does not supplant accountability where a killing was objectively unnecessary, reinforcing the jury's role in determining necessity.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of the Weathersby rule in self-defense claims, particularly when the defendant's credibility is undermined by conflicting evidence. It reinforces that a jury is not obligated to accept a defendant's self-serving testimony, even as the sole eyewitness, if objective physical evidence, prior inconsistent statements, or other witness accounts provide material contradictions. The court's discussion regarding the 'battered wife syndrome' highlights a growing legal sensitivity to domestic violence but firmly asserts that such a condition does not automatically excuse a homicide if the act was not objectively necessary for self-defense, thus maintaining individual accountability within the criminal justice system.
