Carl Edward Rayford v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-KA-01160-COA
CARL EDWARD RAYFORD
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
08/11/2005
HON. JERRY O. TERRY SR.
HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND
CONO A. CARANNA II
CRIMINAL-FELONY
CONVICTED OF MURDER AND
SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
AFFIRMED - 10/19/2010
BEFORE LEE, P.J., ISHEE AND MAXWELL, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
Carl Edward Rayford was found guilty of murder by a jury in the Harrison County
Circuit Court. Rayford was sentenced to life in the custody of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections. The trial court subsequently denied Rayford’s motion for a new trial.
Rayford now appeals asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and
the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
FACTS
¶2.
On the morning of May 26, 2002, Rodney Terrell was walking to his job at Gulf
Concrete when he was spotted by a friend, David Carter. Carter offered Terrell a ride, and
Terrell accepted. After only a few blocks, Carter dropped Terrell off at another location in
Gulfport, Mississippi, so Terrell could ride the rest of the way to work with a co-worker.
Moses Brent was taking his garbage to the street when he saw Terrell exit Carter’s car. Brent
saw Terrell walk to an apartment door in the complex across the street. As Terrell stood in
front of apartment number five, Brent saw a man exit the same apartment and shoot Terrell
five times with a handgun. After Terrell fell to the ground, Brent saw the man, later
identified as Rayford, stand over Terrell and shoot him again. Brent immediately called 911.
Brent stayed on the phone with the dispatcher to report Rayford’s subsequent actions.
¶3.
Brent stated that Rayford reloaded his handgun, entered his apartment for a moment,
exited his apartment wearing another shirt, got an assault rifle and ammunition from his
truck, loaded the items in a Ford Mustang, and then drove away. Brent testified that Rayford
conducted himself calmly and did not appear to be in a hurry.
¶4.
Officer Greg Goodman, with the Gulfport Police Department, was dispatched to the
scene and spotted Rayford’s Mustang. Officer Goodman attempted to block Rayford’s car,
but Rayford accelerated and drove around the police car. Rayford was apprehended shortly
thereafter. Officer Goodman stated that Rayford acted calmly and complied with police
orders. In searching Rayford’s car, the police found a loaded handgun, a loaded assault rifle,
and a canvas bag full of ammunition.
2
¶5.
Officer Craig Peterson interviewed Rayford at the police station. Rayford stated that
his co-workers had picked on him, and he had planned to quit that morning.
¶6.
Rayford’s boss at Gulf Concrete testified that he never received any reports of a
conflict between Rayford and Terrell. One of Rayford’s co-workers testified that Rayford
was quiet and did not interact often with the other employees. There was testimony that the
other employees sometimes picked on Rayford. Rayford’s landlord testified that Rayford
mentioned several times that he had problems with his co-workers, but Rayford never
revealed anything specific. Rayford’s sister testified that Rayford had told her he was picked
on by his co-workers and that he was going to quit.
¶7.
During trial, Rayford raised the defense of insanity. Rayford had a history of mental
illness, having been first diagnosed with chronic depression in 1994. On one occasion
Rayford had been prescribed antidepressant medication, but it is unclear how often Rayford
took his medication. Rayford previously had attempted suicide on several ocassions. Two
experts testified concerning Rayford’s mental illness: Dr. Anthony Stock testified on behalf
of Rayford, and Dr. Henry Maggio testified for the State.
DISCUSSION
I. LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
¶8.
In his first issue on appeal, Rayford argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support the guilty verdict. Specifically, Rayford contends that the State did not prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that he was legally sane at the time he shot Terrell. Mississippi still
follows the M’Naghten test for determining whether a person was sane at the time of the
crime. Woodham v. State, 800 So. 2d 1148, 1158 (¶29) (Miss. 2001). Under the M’Naghten
3
test, the accused must be “laboring under such defect of reason from disease of the mind as
(1) not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or (2) if he did know it, that
he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.” Roundtree v. State, 568 So. 2d 1173,
1181 (Miss. 1990). The accused must not have known right from wrong at the time of the
offense. Woodham, 800 So. 2d at 1158 (¶29). The question of “a defendant’s sanity is
within the province of the jury, which may accept or reject expert and lay testimony.” Id.
A defendant is presumed sane until a reasonable doubt of sanity is created. Roundtree, 568
So. 2d at 1181. Once a reasonable doubt of sanity is raised, the State bears the burden to
prove the defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
¶9.
Dr. Stock, a psychiatrist, testified on behalf of Rayford. Dr. Stock examined Rayford
for approximately one hour one year after the crime. Dr. Stock testified that Rayford was
responsive during the examination and gave logical answers in response to the questions.
Dr. Stock testified that Rayford had suffered from depression throughout his life and had
attempted suicide five times. Dr. Stock diagnosed Rayford with major depression with
severe psychotic findings. Dr. Stock opined that at the time of the murder, Rayford suffered
from a brief psychotic episode and was unable to understand the nature and quality of his acts
or know the difference between right and wrong. Rayford told Dr. Stock that on the day of
the murder, when Rayford saw Terrell, he had an emotional surge of anger and then saw
blood. Rayford told Dr. Stock that he was “floating out of his body.” Dr. Stock testified that
Rayford was of “unsound mind at the time [of the murder] based upon the way [Rayford]
reported the events of the day.”
¶10.
Dr. Stock admitted that he had not been provided with the police reports and was
4
unaware that there was an eyewitness to Rayford’s actions.
Dr. Stock admitted that
Rayford’s actions after the shooting could be perceived as purposeful actions, such that
Rayford knew what he had done was wrong. In Dr. Stock’s report, he opined that Rayford
“may” have been experiencing a “micro-psychotic event.” Dr. Stock noted that his diagnosis
should be “substantiated through an extensive and full forensic evaluation.”
¶11.
Dr. Maggio, a psychiatrist, testified for the State. Dr. Maggio also examined Rayford
more than a year after the murder. Dr. Maggio reviewed Rayford’s medical records as well
as court documents related to the case. Dr. Maggio opined that Rayford’s actions after the
shooting were not the result of impulse. Dr. Maggio admitted that Rayford suffered from
major depressive disorder, but he determined that Rayford knew the difference between right
and wrong. Dr. Maggio noted that there was nothing in Rayford’s medical history to suggest
prior psychotic episodes.
¶12.
Both Dr. Stock and Dr. Maggio noted that Rayford complained in the past of having
hallucinations. However, it is not evident that Rayford was having hallucinations on the day
of Terrell’s murder.
¶13.
We will not reverse a jury’s finding that a defendant was legally sane at the time of
the crime if there is substantial evidence to support such a finding. Woodham, 800 So. 2d
at 1159 (¶31). In addition to Dr. Maggio’s testimony, there was evidence that: Rayford was
upset with his co-workers; Rayford had trouble sleeping prior to the murder because of his
relationship with his co-workers; and Rayford acted purposefully immediately after shooting
Terrell. The jury did not find that the evidence supported a finding of insanity. Finding
substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict, we find this issue is without merit.
5
II. OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
¶14.
Rayford also argues that the overwhelming weight of the evidence did not support a
guilty verdict.
This Court will “only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the
overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an
unconscionable injustice.” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 844 (¶18) (Miss. 2005). Here, the
evidence presented by the State proved Rayford was legally sane at the time of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. We cannot find that allowing the guilty verdict to stand would
sanction an unconscionable injustice. This issue is without merit.
¶15. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HARRISON 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 ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON 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.
