IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2025-KA-00721-SCT
JOHNNY LEE HOUSE, JR. a/k/a JOHNNY HOUSE, JR. a/k/a JOHNNY HOUSE
v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/22/2025 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. BARRY W. FORD TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: ROBERT THOMAS RICH TOMMY RAY SAVANT
BRANDI LINDSAY BROWN
DANA P. SIMS
DANA HELENE EVANS
AKILLIE MALONE OLIVER
GLYNNIS DANIELLE PLEASANT COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: YAZOO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM ANDY SUMRALL THOMAS P. WELCH, JR.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALLISON ELIZABETH HORNE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: AKILLIE MALONE OLIVER NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/20/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
BEFORE COLEMAN, P.J., ISHEE AND BRANNING, JJ.
COLEMAN, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. A Yazoo County jury convicted Johnny Lee House Jr. of manslaughter and aggravated assault. For manslaughter, the court sentenced House to twenty years. For aggravated assault, the trial court sentenced him to twenty years, with ten years to serve and ten years suspended. He now appeals his convictions.
FACTS
¶2. On November 20, 2022, a shooting occurred during a trail ride and bonfire event at Wells Ranch in Bentonia, Mississippi. The event included around two hundred participants. Tykeria Butler testified that during the event, she saw her uncle Christopher Turnage and Johnny House get into a verbal altercation. During the altercation, House turned and walked away from Turnage. Turnage followed until House turned back toward Turnage, pulled a gun from his backpack, and shot Turnage. House only fired once.
¶3. Butler testified that, after House’s shot, several bystanders also fired guns. She explained that she remained on the ground for several minutes to avoid being shot. Yazoo County Police testified that nearly one hundred shell casings were found at the scene. One .38 caliber round was recovered from Turnage’s torso, and one .30 caliber round was recovered from Turnage’s forearm. The shot to Turnage’s torso was the fatal shot. During the ensuing mass shooting, Amanda Gatlin was shot in the head; Gatlin survived her injury.
¶4. At trial, the defense offered Isaiah Carter, who had been a host of the event, as a witness. He testified that he saw House at the beginning of the party but did not see him again. He also testified that he saw an unknown man dressed in black firing into the crowd. Upon hearing that part of the testimony, the State objected, claiming that, despite having talked to Carter, he had not previously informed the State of the man in black firing into the crowd. Defense counsel confirmed that he had not supplemented discovery with Carter’s account of the man dressed in black. The trial court sustained the objection and did not allow
3
the defense to question him further about the man dressed in black.
¶5. The jury returned a guilty verdict of manslaughter for killing Turnage and aggravated assault for Gatlin’s injury.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of all reasonably drawn inferences, to determine if any rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Henderson v. State, 323 So. 3d 1020, 1028 (¶ 26) (Miss. 2021) (citing Martin v. State, 214 So. 3d 217, 222 (Miss. 2017); Hughes v. State, 983 So. 2d 270, 275-76 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2008)). The Court will “reverse and render only if the facts and inferences ‘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 is guilty.’” Hughes, 983 So. 2d at 275-76 (¶ 10) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Brown v. State, 965 So. 2d 1023, 1030 (Miss. 2007)). “The evidence will be deemed sufficient if ‘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[.]’” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Brown, 965 So. 2d at 1030). “The relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown, 965 So. 2d at 1030).
4
¶7. The Mississippi Supreme Court reviews a trial court’s discovery ruling under an abuse of discretion standard, and decisions are reversed only in situations of manifest injustice. Blakeney v. State, 236 So. 3d 11, 22 (¶ 37) (Miss. 2017) (citing Fulks v. State, 18 So. 3d 803, 805 (Miss. 2009)).
¶8. The issuance of a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Flowers v. State, 51 So. 3d 911, 912 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2010). “In determining whether error exists in granting or refusing jury instructions, the instructions must be read as a whole; if the instructions fairly announce the law and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found.” Jones v. State, 962 So. 2d 1263, 1272 (¶ 33) (Miss. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Martin v. State, 854 So. 2d 1004, 1009 (Miss. 2003)).
ANALYSIS
I. Was House’s aggravated assault conviction supported by sufficient evidence?
¶9. Mississippi’s aggravated assault law is broadly written. Mississippi Code Section 97- 3-7(2)(a) reads:
(2)(a) A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she (i) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; (ii) attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon or other means likely to produce death or serious bodily harm; or (iii) causes any injury to a child who is in the process of boarding or exiting a school bus in the course of a violation of Section 63-3-615; and, upon conviction, he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one (1) year or sentenced to the custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than twenty (20)
years.
5
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-7(2)(a) (Rev. 2020). Specifically, House was indicted and charged under subsection (2)(a)(i), which the Court has held has elements distinct from subsection (2)(a)(ii). Jackson v. State, 594 So. 2d 20, 23 (Miss. 1992). The aggravated assault indictment for count II alleges that House “willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously cause[d] serious bodily injury to Amanda Gatlin by shooting a firearm into a crowd and initiating a shootout which resulted in Amanda Gatlin being shot in the head, thereby manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”
¶10. The indictment tracks the reckless prong of the crime described in subsection (2)(a)(i). The State was required to prove that House:
(1) caused;
(2) serious bodily injury to Gatlin;
(3) by acting recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Accordingly, the broad aggravated assault statute does not require the State to prove that House’s bullet was the one that injured Gatlin, only that there was a causal relationship between House’s reckless actions and Gatlin’s injury. The lax requirements of the language of Section 97-3-7(2)(a)(i) are distinguishable from other criminal statutes that require the State to prove that the defendant was the shooter. See, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1) (Rev. 2020). Additionally, the Court has held that the statute does not require specific intent. McGowan v. State, 541 So. 2d 1027, 1029 (Miss. 1989).
¶11. House’s brief addresses whether House personally fired the shot that struck Gatlin.
6
Based on the statute, the indictment, and the jury instruction, however, the jury was charged with answering whether House, by his own individual act of shooting a firearm into a crowd and thereby initiating a shootout, caused serious bodily injury to Gatlin by acting recklessly with extreme indifference to human life. The statute does not require that House’s bullet hit Gatlin.
¶12. According to Section 97-3-7(2)(a)(i), “a person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life[.]” The statute requires the defendant’s purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct to cause serious bodily injury to another. Id.
¶13. While the Court has not applied proximate cause principles to the exact present scenario, in Conner v. State, 179 Miss. 795, 177 So. 46, 47 (1937), the Court held that a defendant is criminally liable for the proximate cause of injuries flowing from a chain of events his wrongful act set in motion. In Conner, the defendant struck the victim, causing him to become dazed and stagger into a third party, Tubb, who then pushed the victim “in the effort to straighten him up.” Id. The victim, was “still in a dazed and staggering condition” when he “took a few steps and fell against a projection on an iron post,” dying from that injury. Id. The defendant argued that Tubbs’s action of pushing the victim was an independent and intervening cause of the victim’s death. Id. The Court rejected that argument, holding that the “wrongful force” set in motion by the defendant “had not lost its
7
identity or continuity” through to “the final injury” and affirmed Conner’s conviction. Id.
¶14. Here, House and Turnage were arguing by the dice table. When House turned to walk away from Turnage, Turnage followed House. House then turned back toward Turnage, pulling a gun from a backpack he was wearing and shooting Turnage. In doing so, House fired toward a crowd of around two hundred people, and in response, nearly one hundred shots rang out from the crowd, striking Gatlin in the head, Turnage a second time in the forearm, and several other event-goers.
¶15. House’s act of firing into a large crowd, which initiated responsive gunfire, displayed an extreme indifference to the value of human life. House’s actions were the proximate cause of Gatlin’s injury. Additionally, the responsive gunfire was not an independent and intervening cause of Gatlin’s injury because House’s actions initiated the series of events that led to Gatlin’s injury.
¶16. Furthermore, when denying the directed verdict, the trial court correctly observed that “to pull a handgun or any other gun in a crowded area like [that] and start firing[,] the expected outcome is somebody is going to be hurt or injured.”
¶17. Since House intentionally shot into a large crowd—an action that is expected to put people in danger—House’s actions caused Gatlin’s injury. The aggravated assault statute criminalizes conduct that causes serious bodily injury under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, and the jury was correctly tasked with determining whether House caused serious bodily injury to Gatlin by firing into a crowd and
8
starting a shootout. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was thus sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated assault.
II. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by limiting a defense witness’s testimony when the defense counsel admitted that he had personally learned additional facts from the witness before trial but failed to supplement discovery?
¶18. The Court reviews a trial court’s discovery ruling under an abuse of discretion standard; decisions are reversed only in situations of manifest injustice. Blakeney, 236 So. 3d at 22 (citing Fulks, 18 So. 3d at 805).
¶19. Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.3 requires the defense to disclose, for each witness in chief, “the substance of any oral statement made by any such witness[.]” MRCrP 17.3(1). Rule 17.8 also requires the defense to “timely . . . supplement discovery” disclosures when “a party discovers additional material or information which is subject to disclosure[.]” MRCrP 17.8. Rule 17.9(b)(2) provides that if a party introduces evidence that has not been timely disclosed, the Court may exclude evidence from the trial. MRCrP 17.9(b)(2).
¶20. In Williams v. State, 54 So. 3d 212 (Miss. 2011), Williams was convicted of killing Calvin Younger at a bar in Hinds County. Id. at 214. At trial, Williams called a bouncer, Anthony Herrington, to testify that Younger possessed a firearm earlier that night. He was allowed to testify he had heard the victim cursing at Williams prior to the shooting, but he was not allowed to testify that the victim had a gun earlier because the trial court found that the defense’s discovery responses had not mentioned that Williams possessed a firearm. Id. at 213. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but the Supreme Court granted
9
certiorari and reversed and remanded, holding that the exclusion of the bouncer’s testimony was error. Id. at 216.
¶21. Here, the defense called Isaiah Carter as a witness. Initially, defense counsel mistakenly provided the State with the witness’s name as they knew it, Isaiah Thompson, but with accurate contact information and a synopsis of his testimony, which provided that Carter “[w]as at the event when the shooting occurred and he testified that there was a big crowd. Has known Defendant for a couple of years. Never known him to be armed. Heard shots fired. But didn’t see the shooting.”
¶22. However, at trial, Carter’s testimony extended beyond the synopsis. In addition to his testimony about House and the large crowd at the event, Carter testified that he saw a man dressed in black firing into the crowd. The State objected, claiming that despite talking to Carter, it didn’t have his complete testimony. The court asked Carter what he told the State.
So basically then what I told her, I give her the information, but I didn’t give her all of the information, because I really didn’t know who she was, really to be honest with you because when they called me I didn’t give her all the information, to be honest. Because when they called me they didn’t say who they was. You know I got a number calling from Yazoo. I know that wasn’t Mr. Tommy.
He further said the State had called while he was at work, and the wind was blowing and the phone was going in and out.
¶23. During the trial, defense counsel acknowledged that he had personally spoken with Carter before trial and learned additional facts about the shooting that were not disclosed in discovery. Defense counsel also acknowledged that he “did not supplement the discovery”
10
with Carter’s updated testimony. The court asked: “You didn’t have that in your report that Isaiah Thompson saw somebody shooting; did you?” Defense counsel responded: “I did not.” The Court ruled that Carter was not allowed to testify to anything not listed in the synopsis given to the State by the defense. Limiting a witness’s testimony is within the trial court’s discretion and is an appropriate remedy to a discovery violation. MRCrP 17.9(b).
¶24. Our case is differentiated from Williams because in Williams, the defense discovered “an additional fact” from a witness during trial and “quickly disclosed [the information] to the State.” Williams, 54 So. 3d at 215. Here, the defense counsel knew prior to trial that Carter planned to testify about a man dressed in black shooting into the crowd and defense counsel failed to supplement discovery in violation of Rule 17.8.
¶25. Additionally, the State argues that if the trial court erred by limiting Carter’s testimony, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “This Court will deem harmless an error where ‘the same result would have been reached had [it] not existed.’” Pitchford v. State, 45 So. 3d 216, 235 (¶ 71) (Miss. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Tate v. State, 912 So. 2d 919, 926 (Miss. 2005)). “The exclusion of evidence ‘cannot amount to reversible error unless it effects a substantial rights of a party.’” Quinn v. State, 424 So. 3d 311, 323 (¶ 47) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting Jordan v. State, 211 So. 3d 713, 717 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)).
¶26. The excluded testimony was consistent with the State’s account of the case that there were several responsive shooters at the event. Also, Carter testified that he did not see House
11
for about an hour before the shooting. Therefore, Carter’s testimony would not have exculpated House. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting Carter’s testimony, but even if it had, any alleged error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
III. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting the State’s aiding and abetting jury instruction over the defense’s when the verdict did not depend on aiding and abetting?
¶27. The issuance of a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Flowers, 51 So. 3d at 912. “In determining whether error exists in granting or refusing jury instructions, the instructions must be read as a whole; if the instructions fairly announce the law and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found.” Jones, 962 So. 2d at 1272 (quoting Martin, 854 So. 2d at 1009).
¶28. In Pulphus v. State, 782 So. 2d 1220 (Miss. 2001), Pulphus argued that the trial court erred by giving jury instructions S-3 and S-4 to the jury because they instructed the jury on elements of aiding and abetting a crime and conspiracy. Id. at 1223. Pulphus asserted that the jury instructions substantively amended the indictment. Id. The Court held that the trial court did not err by allowing the two jury instructions. Id. The error was harmless because the other instructions correctly informed the jury of the State’s burden of proof and required it to find every element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby eliminating any prejudicial effect. Id. at 1225.
¶29. Here, the State offered Jury Instruction S-8 which stated, “One who aids and abets another in the commission of a crime is guilty as a principal. To aid and abet the commission
12
of a felony, one must do something that will incite, encourage, or assist the actual perpetrator in the commission of the crime.” The defense objected to S-8 and offered D-10, which was taken from Milano v. State, 790 So. 2d 179, (Miss. 2001). Jury Instruction D-10 stated:
The guilt of a defendant in a criminal case may be established without proof that the defendant personally did every act constituting the offense alleged.
The law recognizes that, ordinarily, anything a person can do for himself may also be accomplished by him through the direction of another person as his or her agent, or by acting in concert with, or under the direction of another person or persons in a joint effort or enterprise.
If another person is acting under the direction of the defendant or if the defendant joins another person and performs acts with the intent to commit a crime, then the law holds the defendant responsible for the acts and conduct of such other persons just as though the defendant had committed the acts or engaged in such conduct.
Before any defendant may be held criminally responsible for the acts of others, it is necessary that the accused deliberately associate himself in some way with the crime and participate in it with the intent to bring about the crime.
Mere presence at the scene of a crime and knowledge that a crime is being committed are not sufficient to establish that a defendant either directed or aided and abetted the crime unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a participant and not merely a knowing spectator.
In other words, you may not find any defendant guilty unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that every element of the offense as defined in these instructions was committed by some person or persons, and that the defendant voluntarily participated in its commission with the intent to violate the law.
House argues that issuing jury instruction S-8 instead of D-10 “allowed the State to gloss over the fact that it failed to produce any evidence that House was in any way a part of the aggravated assault on Gatlin.”
¶30. The State argues that House’s actions support the individually prong of the charge,
13
and therefore the aiding and abetting instruction was superfluous. The indictment read:
JOHNNY HOUSE, on or about the [sic] November 20, 2022, in Yazoo County, Mississippi, individually or while aiding and abetting others and/or acting in concert with others did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously cause serious bodily injury to Amanda Gatlin by shooting a firearm into a crowd and initiating a shootout which resulted in Amanda Gatlin being shot in the head, thereby manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
(Emphasis added.) The State was not required to prove that House aided and abetted anyone. Any deficiency in S-8 could not have impacted the verdict. Furthermore, a similar argument was made and rejected by the Court in Pulphus. Pulphus, 782 So. 2d at 1225.
¶31. House’s actions satisfied the individually prong of the indictment, and therefore the aiding and abetting instruction was an unnecessary addition. House’s verdict was not impacted by the jury instruction. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
CONCLUSION
¶32. Pursuant to the foregoing, we affirm the convictions of Johnny Lee House Jr.
¶33. AFFIRMED.
RANDOLPH, C.J., KING, P.J., ISHEE, GRIFFIS, SULLIVAN, BRANNING AND WILSON, JJ., CONCUR.