Christopher Darnell Eugene Roach v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-KP-02147-COA
CHRISTOPHER DARNELL EUGENE ROACH
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
11/06/2008
HON. ROGER T. CLARK
HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
CHRISTOPHER DARNELL EUGENE
ROACH (PRO SE)
BOTY MCDONALD
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
CONO A. CARANNA II
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF MURDER AND
SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
AFFIRMED - 06/22/2010
EN BANC.
CARLTON, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Christopher Darnell Eugene Roach was convicted in the Harrison County Circuit
Court of the murder of Vonchartter Bailey. He was sentenced to life in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections.
¶2.
Roach argues on appeal that: (1) the evidence and testimony presented at trial was
insufficient to support the verdict of murder, and (2) his conduct constituted the crime of
manslaughter, not murder. He asks this Court to reverse his conviction and remand the
matter for a new trial. Upon review, we find no error and affirm Roach’s conviction and
sentence.
FACTS
¶3.
Roach and Bailey were married in or around December 2000. During their marriage,
Bailey gave birth to a child. The couple later divorced, but maintained an amicable
relationship.
¶4.
On March 31, 2007, Bailey invited Roach to travel to Gulfport, Mississippi, with her
and spend a few days. On April 1, 2007, Bailey and Roach drove to Gulfport. During the
drive, both Roach and Bailey ingested cocaine by “snorting” and consumed alcohol. Upon
arrival in Gulfport, the pair checked into the Sun Suites hotel. While in the hotel room, the
couple continued ingesting cocaine by “snorting,” smoking marijuana, and consuming
alcohol. At some point during the afternoon, Bailey went through Roach’s bag and removed
the loaded gun Roach had packed. Roach testified that he asked Bailey to hand him the gun,
and she refused. Roach asserts he approached Bailey from behind and reached his arms
around her in an attempt to grab the gun. Roach testified that while they fought over the gun,
the gun discharged, shooting Roach in his left hand.
¶5.
Roach further asserts he then took possession of the gun and shot Bailey six times at
close range, killing her. At trial, the forensic pathology expert testified that the gunshot
wound Roach received to his hand was consistent with an injury received while holding
Bailey down and shooting her through his hand. Roach testified that after getting shot in the
2
hand, the next thing he remembered was waking up in jail.
¶6.
After a trial in Harrison County Circuit Court on November 5-6, 2008, a jury found
Roach guilty of murder. Roach filed a motion for a judgment not withstanding the verdict
or, alternatively, for a new trial. The circuit court denied his motion, and this appeal
followed.
DISCUSSION
I.
¶7.
Verdict is against the legal sufficiency of the evidence.
Roach argues that the verdict of the jury, as well as the judgment and sentence of the
trial court, is contrary to established law and against the overwhelming weight of the
evidence. However, this Court notes that Roach’s argument actually poses a question
regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence, and we will address his argument
accordingly. Roach argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proof by a requisite
showing of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as to the element of “deliberate design” in
the murder offense charged. As a result, Roach submits that the trial judge erred in not
granting his request for a directed verdict in his favor at the end of the State’s case-in-chief
and at the close of all of the evidence. Additionally, Roach claims that the trial court erred
in not granting his motion for a judgment not withstanding the verdict and his motion for a
new trial.
¶8.
In Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 886, 889 (Miss. 1968), the Mississippi Supreme Court
stated that in considering whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face
of a motion for a directed verdict or for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical
inquiry is whether the evidence shows “beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] accused
3
committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element
of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to
support a conviction.” The relevant question before us, then, is “whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (citations omitted). While viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, “[s]hould the facts and inferences considered in a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence ‘point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense
with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant was guilty,’” then the appellate court must reverse and render as the proper
remedy. Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (¶16) (Miss. 2005) (citing Edwards v. State, 469
So. 2d 68, 70 (Miss. 1985)). “However, if a review of the evidence reveals that it is of such
quality and weight that, ‘having in mind the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof
standard, reasonable fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach
different conclusions on every element of the offense,’ the evidence will be deemed to have
been sufficient.” Id.
¶9.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-19(1)(a) (Rev. 2007) sets forth the elements
required for the crime of murder as follows:
(1) The killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means
or in any manner shall be murder in the following cases:
(a) When done with deliberate design to effect the death of the
person killed, or of any human being[.]
Roach claims that the State failed to prove the deliberate-design element beyond a reasonable
4
doubt; therefore, at best, fair-minded jurors might have only found him guilty of
manslaughter. Roach testified that he shot Bailey in the heat of passion; thus, he should have
only been found guilty of manslaughter. However, when evaluating the sufficiency of the
evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, not
Roach.
¶10.
In contrast to Roach’s testimony, evidence in the record shows that Roach fought with
Bailey, held her down, and accidentally shot himself through the hand, and then shot Bailey
a total of six times. As a result, the record contains evidence of deliberate design, in addition
to evidence of manslaughter, thus leaving a question of fact for the jury. Therefore, the
circuit court judge correctly denied Roach’s motion for a directed verdict, as a question of
fact existed for the jury based upon the facts and inferences set forth in the record. In sum,
when considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find the record
contains sufficient evidence for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that all of
the essential elements of the crime of murder had been met by the State. This issue is
without merit.
II.
¶11.
The conduct of the defendant constituted the crime of
manslaughter, not murder.
Roach argues that the gunshot allegedly fired by Bailey injuring his hand constitutes
the “blow or certain other provocation” and the “immediate and reasonable provocation”
required under the definition of manslaughter. Roach argues that the alleged shooting raised
a “heat of passion” in him, resulting in his shooting Bailey six times. Thus, Roach argues
that as a matter of law, he is only guilty of manslaughter.
5
¶12.
However, conflicting evidence appears in the record, which supports the State’s
theory that Roach inflicted the gunshot wound to himself while shooting Bailey multiple
times. Bailey was shot six times in her neck, back, right forearm, and left thigh. Thus, the
forensic pathology expert’s testimony that Roach inflicted the gunshot wound to himself
while shooting Bailey supports a deliberate-design-murder instruction. In Mississippi, “the
rule is well[]settled, that the issue as to whether or not an admitted homicide is murder or
manslaughter is ordinarily a question for the jury on conflicting evidence.” Kinkead v. State,
190 So. 2d 838, 840 (Miss. 1966). Thus, the circuit court judge properly submitted the
question of whether Bailey’s death resulted from the crime of murder or the crime of heat-ofpassion manslaughter to the jury to decide.
¶13.
After the trial, the jury received a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication, as well
as jury instructions addressing murder and manslaughter. After deliberating, the jury found
Roach guilty of murder. We find that evidence in the record supports the jury’s verdict
finding Roach guilty of murder. This issue is without merit.
¶14. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY 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 ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
6
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.
