Christopher Alan Myers v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-KA-01532-COA
CHRISTOPHER ALAN MYERS A/K/A CHRISTOPHER MYERS
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
08/03/2000
HON. LARRY EUGENE ROBERTS
LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JAMES A. WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEWITT T. ALLRED III
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
BILBO MITCHELL
NATURE OF THE CASE:
CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
MURDER: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF LIFE IN
THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC
DISPOSITION:
AFFIRMED - 03/05/2002
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 4/8/2002; denied 6/18/2002
CERTIORARI FILED:
8/2/2002
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE McMILLIN, C.J., BRIDGES, AND BRANTLEY, JJ.
BRANTLEY, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Christopher Myers was convicted in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court of murder. Myers appeals,
arguing that the court erred in instructing the jury, allowing testimony that referenced a suppressed
confession and denying the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative a new
trial. In addition, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the selection of the jury.
However, the State argues that the verdict should be affirmed as the evidence supported the conviction and
that the trial court did not err. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. On August 27, 1999, the Lauderdale County Sheriff's Department responded to a report of the
discovery of a dead body. After identifying the victim as Tony Davis, the investigators interviewed Danny
Williams who Davis's family indicated was associated with Davis. Williams told the investigators that he was
with Myers and Davis when Myers shot Davis.
¶3. Two guns and ammunition were found in the freezer at Myers's brother's home, where Myers lived.
One of the guns was tested and was determined to be the one involved in the death of Davis. Myers's
fingerprints were also found on that weapon.
¶4. During the trial, Williams testified that Davis joined him and Myers while riding in Myers's car on the
night of August 26, 1999. They drove down a dirt road where they parked. The three men stood outside
the car talking and laughing. Williams then got in the back seat of the car. A few minutes later he heard a
gunshot, Davis saying "Stop, Leave me alone" and more gunshots. Myers jumped in the car, drove off,
turned around, fired two more shots and drove away.
¶5. Myers's brother testified that early on the morning that the body was found, Myers asked him if he
wanted to see a body. He told his brother that he had killed someone and if he did not believe him then he
should look in the freezer because that is where he hid the gun.
¶6. At the close of the State's case, Myers moved for a directed verdict which the judge denied. The
defense rested without putting on any evidence. After the verdict, Myers filed a motion for a JNOV or in
the alternative a new trail. Both were denied.
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GIVE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND MANSLAUGHTER INSTRUCTIONS.
A. Circumstantial evidence instruction
¶7. Myers argues that the court erred in failing to grant a circumstantial evidence instruction because there
was no evidence of Myers's reckless disregard to life. Circumstantial evidence instructions are only given
when the State is without a confession or eyewitness to the offense charged. Moore v. State, 787 So. 2d
1282, 1288 (¶18) (Miss. 2001). Direct evidence excludes any necessity for a circumstantial evidence
instruction. Sullivan v. State, 749 So. 2d 983, 992 (¶20) (Miss. 1999).
¶8. Here, Myers confessed shooting Davis to his brother. Additionally, Williams testified that he, Davis and
Williams were together that night and he heard the shots. Then, after Myers drove away in the car with
Williams, Myers turned around and Williams saw Myers shoot out of the car window. There was direct
evidence presented at trial and a circumstantial evidence instruction was not warranted.
B. Manslaughter instruction
¶9. Myers also argues that as a matter of policy the court should give a manslaughter instruction
automatically whenever a depraved-heart murder instruction is given. Whether, as a matter of policy, a
manslaughter instruction should automatically be given was not asserted in the trial court below and will not
be addressed here. However, we will address whether a manslaughter instruction should have been given in
this case. The State argues that the court properly denied the heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction
because no evidence supported the giving of such an instruction.
¶10. The trial court may refuse an instruction when it incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in
the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. Agnew v. State, 783 So. 2d 699, 702 (¶6) (Miss.
2001) (citing Humphrey v. State, 759 So. 2d 368, 380 (¶33) (Miss. 2000)). Heat of passion is defined as
a violent uncontrollable rage, hatred, resentment or terror. Agnew, 783 So. 2d at 703 (citing Graham v.
State, 582 So. 2d 1014, 1017 (Miss. 1991)). However, words alone or mere disagreements are not
enough to require a heat-of-passion instruction. Gates v. State, 484 So. 2d 1002, 1005 (Miss. 1986).
¶11. Here, there is no evidence of a disagreement between Davis and Myers. Williams testified that he did
not hear any argument between the two men before hearing the shots ring out. Davis testified that before he
got into the car, the three of them were talking and laughing. Additionally, Myers's brother testified that
Myers had killed Davis because he "pissed him off", but such testimony without more is not enough
evidence to necessitate a manslaughter instruction.
II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING TESTIMONY
REFERENCING THE SUPPRESSED CONFESSION.
¶12. During cross-examination of the investigator, the defense questioned why Williams's fingerprints were
not compared to those found on the weapon and why no one else was charged or investigated. On redirect,
the State asked if they had any reason to believe anyone else was involved. The investigator responded that
Williams had been cooperative in explaining what had occurred and that "we had already spoken with Mr.
Myers, who had told us his version." The defense objected and the judge sustained the objection,
admonishing the jury to disregard the statement.
¶13. Myers does not fully explain this assignment of error and only cites authority dealing with the
voluntariness of a confession. Here, the lower court had already ruled that Myers's confession was
inadmissible. If the assignment of error is that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial, then Myers
has failed to cite to any authority on this issue. This Court will not review any issues where the party has
failed to cite relevant authority. Williams v. State, 708 So. 2d 1358, 1360-61 (¶12) (Miss. 1998).
Therefore, we will not further address this issue.
III. WHETHER THE JURY INSTRUCTION IMPROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY
ON ELEMENTS OF CRIME.
¶14. Myers argues that the depraved-heart murder instruction given to the jury contained assumptions of
material facts and that his conviction should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. However, this
argument was not made below to the trial court. This Court will not address an issue first raised on appeal.
Holland v. State, 705 So. 2d 307, 352 (Miss. 1997). Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred.
IV. WHETHER MYERS RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
¶15. Myers argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because of his trial attorney's failure to
agree with the judge to strike certain jurors for cause. During voir dire, eight veniremen stated that they had
read an article about the case. When asked, three of the eight stated that they could not disregard the article
and were struck for cause along with two others of the eight. The judge proposed that he would strike the
remaining three. Both sides objected and stated that the veniremen had been honest in stating that they had
read the article, but could disregard it and only look at the evidence presented at trial. One of the remaining
three veniremen was placed on the jury.
¶16. Myers has failed to cite to any relevant authority dealing with ineffective assistance of counsel, but cites
to authority dealing with change of venue. As stated above, this Court will not address any issue where a
party has failed to cite to any relevant authority. Williams, 708 So. 2d at 1360-61 (¶12). Therefore, we
will not address this issue.
V. WHETHER THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT
AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
¶17. The standard of review for sufficiency of evidence is well settled by our Court. This Court will not
reverse a jury verdict unless when reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, no
reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Gleeton v. State, 716 So. 2d
1083, 1087 (Miss. 1993). In addition, it is the jury's duty to determine the weight and credibility of the
evidence. Id.
¶18. Myers argues that he should have been granted a new trial. A new trial will not be granted, unless "the
verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an
unconscionable injustice." Groseclose v. State, 440 So. 2d 297, 300 (Miss. 1983). Whether to grant or
deny a motion for a new trial is in the discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed unless this
discretion was abused. Catchings v. State, 684 So. 2d 591, 600 (Miss. 1996).
¶19. Myers's brother testified that Myers confessed to him. The gun was found exactly where Myers told
his brother the gun was located and was identified as the weapon involved in the death of Davis. Williams
testified that Davis and Myers did not argue, but they were all laughing and talking together right before
Williams returned to the car and heard the shots. Williams also testified that Myers drove off, turned around
and fired a couple of more shots at Davis from the car window. The weight and sufficiency of the evidence
supports the conviction. Finding no errors, we affirm.
¶20. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE TAXED TO LAUDERDALE COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, MYERS AND CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.