Background
Jontiese Fortune was indicted for first-degree murder in the shooting death of Sylvester Burkes. According to eyewitness Peru Jett, Fortune became upset after receiving a telephone call, had a gun when Burkes arrived, and exchanged shoves with Burkes. Jett testified that after Burkes pushed Fortune and turned to walk away, Fortune shot him in the back. Burkes then rushed Fortune, the two wrestled, and Jett heard two additional shots.
Another witness, Fred Mitchell, testified that Fortune and Burkes tussled and that he heard three gunshots after Burkes walked away, although he did not see the gun. Mitchell also testified that Fortune asked him to describe the shooting as a drive-by. Fortune initially reported a drive-by shooting, later orally admitted shooting Burkes during an interview, and then wrote that Jett was the shooter. The medical examiner determined that Burkes died from a single gunshot wound to the back. The jury found Fortune guilty of manslaughter, and the circuit court sentenced him to twenty years in custody.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Court of Appeals held that the manslaughter verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Applying abuse-of-discretion review and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court concluded that allowing the verdict to stand would not sanction an unconscionable injustice.
The court found that the eyewitness accounts largely corroborated one another on material points: Fortune became agitated after a telephone call, Burkes did not initially appear aggressive, the men engaged in a physical altercation, and three shots were heard. Jett’s account that Fortune shot Burkes in the back as Burkes walked away was consistent with the medical evidence, while Mitchell’s testimony did not materially contradict Jett’s account. Fortune’s inconsistent statements also supported the jury’s credibility determination. To the extent evidence about the confrontation could weigh against murder, the jury resolved that issue in Fortune’s favor by convicting him of manslaughter instead.
Key Takeaways
- A weight-of-the-evidence challenge requires more than identifying some inconsistencies; reversal is warranted only when the verdict is so contrary to the evidence that allowing it to stand would produce an unconscionable injustice.
- The eyewitnesses did not give identical accounts, but their testimony was materially consistent and was reinforced by the medical examiner’s finding that Burkes died from a gunshot wound to the back.
- The jury could consider Fortune’s conflicting accounts—first blaming a drive-by shooter, then admitting the shooting orally, and later accusing Jett—when assessing credibility and guilt.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deference Mississippi appellate courts give juries when reviewing challenges to the weight of the evidence. Minor differences between eyewitness accounts do not require a new trial when the accounts agree on the central events and other evidence supports the verdict.
It also shows how a lesser-included manslaughter verdict may reflect the jury’s resolution of uncertainty about a fatal confrontation even when the defendant was originally charged with murder.