Johnny Slaughter a/k/a Johnny Slaughter Jr. a/k/a Bullet v. State of Mississippi;

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: October 20, 2020
• Docket: NO. 2019-KA-00735-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2019-KA-00735-COA

JOHNNY SLAUGHTER A/K/A JOHNNY APPELLANT SLAUGHTER JR. A/K/A BULLET

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/29/2019 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LEE J. HOWARD COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: NOXUBEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: RODNEY A. RAY ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALLISON ELIZABETH HORNE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: SCOTT WINSTON COLOM NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/20/2020 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

EN BANC.

WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Johnny “Bullet” Slaughter stabbed and killed Dennis Gavin in a fight outside a club

in Macon. Slaughter was indicted for first-degree murder, and following a jury trial, he was

convicted of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. On appeal, Slaughter argues that

there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the jury’s verdict is against

the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We find no error and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On November 2, 2015, Macon police officer Doug Triplett responded to a call about

a fight at Talk of the Town, a club in Macon. When Triplett arrived, he saw Gavin lying in the street, apparently dead. Witnesses told Triplett that Slaughter killed Gavin. Slaughter

was standing nearby next to his truck. When Triplett approached Slaughter, Slaughter

handed him a knife. Slaughter stated that the knife belonged to Gavin, that Gavin had pulled

the knife during their fight, and that he took it from Gavin. Slaughter’s eye was swollen shut

from an apparent injury.

¶3. The county coroner found a second knife underneath Gavin’s body. The knife was

near the middle of Gavin’s back close to his waist. The coroner immediately turned the knife

over to law enforcement.

¶4. Dr. Mark LeVaughn, the State’s chief medical examiner, testified that the toxicology

report from Gavin’s autopsy showed that he had a blood alcohol content of .274. Gavin had

at least fourteen distinct stab wounds, including a lethal stab to his carotid artery that caused

him to bleed to death in a “very short period of time.”

¶5. Willie Jones testified that he was driving home on November 2, 2015, when he saw

Slaughter standing in a parking lot across the street from Talk of the Town. Slaughter waved

Jones down and told Jones that he had “been into it” with Gavin earlier that evening at

Arthur Shanklin’s house. Slaughter stated that Gavin had pulled a knife on him and that he

left Shanklin’s house to avoid trouble. However, Slaughter also said that if Gavin bothered

him again, he was “going to do something” to Gavin. Slaughter stated that Gavin “had” him

when they were at Shanklin’s house, but now he had “something” for Gavin. Jones

encouraged Slaughter to go home and leave Gavin alone. When Jones left, he and Slaughter

hugged. Jones testified that Slaughter put Jones’s hand on Slaughter’s side, and Jones felt

2 “something hard” concealed near Slaughter’s waist. Jones did not know if the object was a

knife or just a cell phone, but this occurred just before or just after Slaughter said that he had

“something” for Gavin or was “going to do something” to Gavin.

¶6. Cornell Patterson testified that he saw Slaughter sitting in his truck near Talk of the

Town around 6:30 or 7 p.m. Slaughter also told Patterson about his confrontation with Gavin

at Shanklin’s house earlier that evening. As they talked, Gavin walked out of the club and

approached Slaughter. Gavin asked Slaughter if they were “okay” and “all right,” and

Slaughter said they were. But when Gavin asked Slaughter to shake his hand, Slaughter said,

“I ain’t going to shake your hand” and “we ain’t all right” and walked away.

¶7. Patterson went inside the club, but he looked out occasionally to check on Slaughter

and Gavin. Later, someone in the club yelled that there was a fight outside. Patterson saw

someone in a white shirt and someone taking swings but could not make out any details.

Patterson stayed in the club until the fight seemed to calm down and then left.

¶8. Joann Harris and Tiffany King were together at Talk of the Town that night. Harris

lived with Gavin at the time. Patterson approached her in the club and told her to go get

Gavin from the parking lot because he and Slaughter were “into it.” Harris looked outside

and saw the men talking, so she returned to her friends. Patterson came back a few minutes

later and again told her to get Gavin. Harris checked outside again and saw nothing out of

the ordinary. About two minutes later, Patterson told her Gavin and Slaughter were fighting.

Harris ran outside and told someone to call the police.

¶9. King also testified that Patterson approached her and Harris three times that night,

3 asking Harris to get Gavin. King said that the second time, Patterson told them that

“Slaughter said he was going to kill [Gavin].” King looked outside prior to the fight and saw

the two men talking, not arguing. When she heard there was a fight, she looked outside. She

saw Slaughter holding Gavin by the shirt and Gavin swinging at Slaughter. She did not see

anything in either man’s hand. She saw Gavin fall and the fight stop. King and Harris both

testified that Slaughter stood nearby talking on his cell phone after he killed Gavin.

¶10. King had also been at Shanklin’s house earlier that evening. She testified that a group

of people were drinking and talking at Shanklin’s house. Gavin was already there when King

arrived. When Slaughter and Earnest Calhoun left to go to the liquor store, Gavin gave

Slaughter money to buy beer. However, Slaughter returned without the beer and gave Gavin

his money back. Later, Gavin asked Slaughter for some of his whiskey. Slaughter told

Gavin there was no more whiskey, and the men started arguing. As King was leaving

Shanklin’s house, she heard someone say that Gavin pulled a knife on Slaughter.

¶11. A short time later, King ran into Gavin near Talk of the Town. By that time, Gavin

had gotten more whiskey, but he dropped his bottle and it shattered. King told Gavin to go

home because he was too drunk. Gavin told King he was “going home within an hour” but

wanted “to try to apologize” to Slaughter first.

¶12. Slaughter called Eddie Little as a witness at trial. Little testified that as he was driving

home from work, he saw Gavin, Slaughter, and Calhoun standing and talking near

Slaughter’s truck, which was parked across the street from Talk of the Town. Little parked

and joined them. The men were discussing the earlier confrontation at Shanklin’s. Calhoun

4 wanted Slaughter and Gavin to discuss the fight, but Gavin said it was over. Gavin and

Slaughter then fist-bumped and “squashed” the fight. However, according to Little, Gavin

also told Calhoun that he “was going to get” Slaughter at Shanklin’s house until Calhoun got

in the way. Calhoun left, and Gavin walked back toward the club. Little and Slaughter

continued talking.

¶13. Little testified that about twenty minutes later, Gavin yelled across the street, “Bullet,

Bullet, where’s Calhoun?” Little believed that Gavin was taunting Slaughter—because

Gavin had said earlier that Calhoun was the only reason he had not attacked Slaughter at

Shanklin’s house. According to Little, Gavin later returned and said that he and Slaughter

were going to fight, but Slaughter said that they had “squashed” their argument and had “no

issue.” According to Little, Slaughter said he was going home and walked toward the

driver’s side door of his truck. Little testified that Gavin walked toward Slaughter and that

he (Little) grabbed Gavin and tried to hold him back. According to Little, Gavin said, “get

your hands off of me,” so Little “turn[ed] [Gavin] loose.” Little testified that Gavin and

Slaughter then “stood face-to-face” and then began fighting. Little stopped trying to

intervene at that point. Little witnessed the fight but testified that he never saw either man

holding a knife.

¶14. Slaughter also testified at trial.1 He stated that he stopped at Shanklin’s house on his

1 Before Slaughter testified, the State argued that he had “opened the door” to evidence of his prior conviction for manslaughter by questioning Little about Gavin’s “reputation in the community for peace and violence.” In response, Slaughter’s attorney stated that Slaughter would admit to the conviction on direct examination and therefore waived a Peterson hearing on the issue. See Peterson v. State, 518 So. 2d 632, 635-38 (Miss. 1987) (discussing the procedures that a court must follow and factors that a court must

5 way home from work. Slaughter decided to make a run to the liquor store and took orders

from some of the people at Shanklin’s house. Gavin asked for a specific kind of beer and

gave Slaughter money for it. However, the store did not have the beer that Gavin wanted,

so Slaughter returned Gavin’s money. Slaughter stated that he did not buy some other kind

of beer because he knew Gavin would complain.

¶15. When Slaughter returned to Shanklin’s house, he stayed and talked to some of the

others there. Gavin continued complaining that he had not gotten any beer, and he asked

Slaughter for some whiskey. According to Slaughter, he and Gavin argued briefly about

whether Gavin could drink straight from the bottle, and eventually he poured some whiskey

into a cup for Gavin. Slaughter testified that Gavin finished his cup and asked for more, but

Slaughter declined. Slaughter testified that Gavin began cursing and shoved Slaughter,

which caused Slaughter to drop his beer. Gavin continued moving toward Slaughter, but

Calhoun intervened, and Slaughter got in his truck and left.

¶16. As Slaughter drove past Talk of the Town, he decided to park and talk with some of

the men he saw. A short time later, Calhoun and Gavin approached him, but Slaughter told

Gavin that he was “through with” their argument and did not need to talk to him. Calhoun

wanted Gavin and Slaughter to shake hands, but Slaughter declined. Nonetheless, the men

agreed they were “cool” and fist-bumped. Gavin went inside Talk of the Town, while

Slaughter remained outside talking to others.

consider before evidence of a defendant’s prior conviction may be admitted under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 609). Slaughter acknowledged the conviction during his testimony on direct examination.

6 ¶17. Like Little, Slaughter also testified that Gavin later came back outside, taunted him,

and tried to fight with him. He also testified that Little unsuccessfully attempted to stop the

fight. Slaughter claimed that while he and Gavin were arguing, he saw “something shiny”

in Gavin’s hand but could not tell whether the object was a “knife,” a “pipe,” or a “baseball

bat.” Slaughter testified that he was standing near the tailgate of his truck when Gavin

advanced toward him. Slaughter testified that he went to the passenger side of his truck,

reached inside the truck, and took out a knife. According to Slaughter, he “stood there” with

the knife and told Gavin to “go on.” Slaughter also told Gavin that he would not “run[]

from” him and was “tired” of dealing with him.

¶18. Slaughter testified that he told Gavin he was “fixing to go,” he put his knife back in

his pocket, and he started to get into his truck to leave. At that point, according to Slaughter,

Gavin suddenly punched him and began “pulling” on him. In response, Slaughter drew his

knife and stabbed Gavin repeatedly. Slaughter testified, “I just went to swinging, and

swinging, and swinging. I did not try to kill [Gavin]. If he got killed, he got killed [by]

accident . . . . I did not try to kill [Gavin]. I tried my best to go around [Gavin].”

¶19. Slaughter testified that he did not know whether Gavin struck him with his fist or

some object. He testified that he saw something “gray” or “shiny” in Gavin’s hand before

Gavin hit him, but he could not identify the object. Slaughter said that he had been in fights

before, but he had never been hit like Gavin hit him that night. He claimed that “everything

went dark” and he “couldn’t see at all” after Gavin hit him. Slaughter testified that he

continued “swinging” at Gavin because he was afraid that Gavin was trying to kill him. He

7 claimed that he could not remember whether he was “swinging” with his knife or just his

fists. He claimed that he did not want to injure or kill Gavin but only “wanted [Gavin] to get

off [him].” Slaughter testified that Gavin eventually “just dropped” to the ground and the

fight was over. He claimed that he still could not see Gavin, although he could hear other

people saying “Bullet got a knife” and “don’t cut him.”

¶20. Slaughter denied that he used his cell phone after he killed Gavin. Slaughter waited

for the police to arrive and gave Triplett his knife. At trial, Slaughter denied that he told

Triplett that the knife was Gavin’s or that he had taken it away from Gavin during the fight.

Slaughter stated that Triplett was lying in his testimony at trial. Slaughter acknowledged that

he was able to use his phone as he was being arrested. According to Slaughter, he still could

not see clearly but was able to call his wife using speed dial. Slaughter was taken to the local

hospital and later transferred to Jackson. Slaughter testified that he suffered a broken eye

socket and fractured nose. He did not require surgery but claimed that he still suffered from

some vision problems.

¶21. The court instructed the jury on first-degree murder, necessary self-defense, and

imperfect self-defense (manslaughter). The jury found Slaughter guilty of manslaughter.

The court sentenced Slaughter to serve a term of twenty years in the custody of the

Department of Corrections with ten years suspended and ten years to serve. Slaughter filed

a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial, which was denied,

and a notice of appeal. On appeal, Slaughter argues that there is insufficient evidence to

support his conviction and, in the alternative, that the jury’s verdict is against the

8 overwhelming weight of the evidence.

ANALYSIS

¶22. A motion for JNOV “challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.” Little v. State, 233

So. 3d 288, 291 (¶16) (Miss. 2017). We review the denial of a motion for JNOV de novo.

Haynes v. State, 250 So. 3d 1241, 1244 (¶6) (Miss. 2018). However, we must accept all

credible evidence of guilt as true and grant the State all reasonable inferences that may be

drawn from the evidence. Id. We will reverse the conviction only if no reasonable juror

could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We must affirm if

“any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Shelton v. State, 214 So. 3d 250, 256 (¶29) (Miss. 2017)).

¶23. A motion for a new trial “challenges the weight of the evidence.” Little, 233 So. 3d

at 291 (¶16). We review the trial judge’s denial of a motion for a new trial only for an abuse

of discretion. Id. at 292 (¶21). We “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the

verdict and disturb the verdict only when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the

evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Id. at 289

(¶1). On appeal, we do not “assume[] the role of juror on appeal. We do not reweigh

evidence. We do not assess the witnesses’ credibility. And we do not resolve conflicts

between evidence. Those decisions belong solely to the jury.” Id.

¶24. The jury in this case found Slaughter guilty of imperfect self-defense manslaughter.

“Unlike true self-defense, imperfect self-defense is not a defense to a criminal act.” Ronk

v. State, 172 So. 3d 1112, 1126 (¶22) (Miss. 2015). “Rather, under the theory of imperfect

9 self-defense, an intentional killing may be considered manslaughter if done without malice

but under a bona fide (but unfounded) belief that it was necessary to prevent death or great

bodily harm.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). In other words, a defendant is guilty of

imperfect self-defense manslaughter if he kills the victim based on a subjective, but

objectively unreasonable, belief that the killing is necessary to prevent death or great bodily

harm. Nelson v. State, 284 So. 3d 711, 716 (¶19) (Miss. 2019).

¶25. On appeal, Slaughter argues that he killed Gavin in necessary self-defense, Miss. Code

Ann. § 97-3-15(1)(f) (Rev. 2014), and that he is entitled to a judgment of acquittal based on

the “Weathersby rule.” The “Weathersby rule” holds that “where the defendant or the

defendant’s witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide, their version, if reasonable,

must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a

credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by the facts of common

knowledge.” Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 209, 147 So. 481, 482 (1933). “There are,

however, limitations upon the familiar Weathersby rule. For example, it is inapplicable when

the defendant’s ‘conduct and statements following the killing are inconsistent with his

version of the events as recounted at trial.’” Parvin v. State, 212 So. 3d 863, 871 (¶18)

(Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 174 (Miss. 1994)). In

addition, “if the defendant’s testimony satisfies all the elements of murder or manslaughter,

the defendant would not be entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal, as this testimony would

be the basis for a valid conviction, and the Weathersby rule would not apply.” Booker v.

State, 64 So. 3d 965, 970 (¶17) (Miss. 2011) (quotation marks, brackets omitted).

10 ¶26. We conclude that the Weathersby rule is inapplicable on the facts of this case. For

one reason, Slaughter’s statements to Triplett following the killing were materially

inconsistent with his version of events at trial. According to Triplett, Slaughter initially

claimed that Gavin pulled a knife on Slaughter and that Slaughter then took the knife from

Gavin and used it to kill Gavin. At trial, however, Slaughter acknowledged that the knife

was his own and that he never actually saw Gavin holding a knife—only some unidentified

object that was “gray” or “shiny.” The jury was free to believe either Triplett or Slaughter,

but Triplett’s testimony renders the Weathersby rule “inapplicable.” Parvin, 212 So. 3d at

873 (¶¶23-24).

¶27. The Weathersby rule is also inapplicable because Slaughter’s own testimony could

support the jury’s verdict. Slaughter admitted that Gavin never actually threatened him with

a knife, and he could not say that he ever saw Gavin holding a knife. Nor did Little or any

other witness see Gavin holding a knife. Furthermore, the physical evidence permits a

reasonable inference that Gavin never drew the knife that was found under his body near the

middle of his back. According to Slaughter’s own testimony, he stabbed Gavin fourteen

times in response to one punch—even as he could hear onlookers begging him to stop.

Based on Slaughter’s own testimony, the jury could have determined that his use of deadly

force was not reasonable or necessary self-defense.

¶28. Weathersby rule aside, the evidence as a whole is sufficient to sustain Slaughter’s

conviction. There is substantial evidence to contradict Slaughter’s claim that he was trying

to avoid a fight with Gavin. Jones testified that Slaughter said that he had “something” for

11 Gavin or was “going to do something” to Gavin prior to the fight. Jones’s testimony also

permits a reasonable inference that Slaughter was already armed with a knife and ready for

a fight before his fatal encounter with Gavin. In addition, there was testimony that Slaughter

threatened to kill Gavin just before the fight started. A rational jury could have found that

Slaughter stabbed Gavin fourteen times despite the fact that Gavin never drew a weapon.

In short, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational jury

could have rejected Slaughter’s claim of necessary self-defense and found him guilty of

manslaughter. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying Slaughter’s motion for

JNOV. Haynes, 250 So. 3d at 1244 (¶6).

¶29. In addition, we cannot say that the jury’s verdict is against the overwhelming weight

of the evidence. The State presented substantial evidence that undermined Slaughter’s claim

of necessary self-defense, and as discussed above, Slaughter’s own testimony supports the

jury’s verdict in certain respects. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

jury’s verdict, we cannot say that “it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the

evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Little, 233

So. 3d at 289 (¶1). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying

Slaughter’s motion for a new trial, and we affirm Slaughter’s conviction and sentence.

¶30. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ., CONCUR.