¶1. Dale ONeal was murdered in his prison cell in the Clay County jail on March 15, 2019. His cellmate, Cameron Henderson, was indicted for first-degree murder pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-19(1)(a) (Supp. 2017). A Clay County Circuit Court jury found Henderson guilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The trial court denied Hendersons motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Aggrieved, Henderson appeals his conviction, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient for a first-degree murder conviction, and (2) the jurys verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Dale ONeal was booked into the Clay County jail on March 8, 2019, on a bench warrant and trespassing charge. He was assigned to Cell N-2 in the north zone, where misdemeanor offenders are housed. Days later, ONeal went to court and was set to be released on March 15, 2019. Mark Gann, an inmate who was also in court with ONeal, testified that “[ONeal] was in a good mood” before and after court because he was finally going to be released.
¶3. On March 13, 2019, Cameron Henderson was booked in the Clay County jail for disturbing the peace and misdemeanor shoplifting. He was also assigned to Cell N-2 in the north zone. ONeal was his only cellmate.
¶4. Each cell in the north zone was equipped with a pay phone attached to the wall. According to testimony at trial, inmates are afforded one collect call. After that, they must set up a personal identification number (PIN) and have money transferred to their books to make phone calls. It is unclear if Henderson ever received his free call. Ethan OBrian, an inmate housed in the north zone at that time, testified that Henderson was “frantic and upset that the [correctional officers] wouldnt let him use the phone” on March 14, 2019. OBrian said that Henderson yelled and beat on his cell door to get the attention of the guards throughout the day, and he did not calm down until around dinnertime.
¶5. Hendersons behavior disturbed several inmates in the north zone. OBrian said that he had to tell Henderson to calm down because he and his cellmates were trying to watch TV. Inmates in Cell N-9 told Henderson to “shut the ‘F’ up.” An altercation even ensued between Henderson and Mario Gill, an inmate in Cell N-1. Nevertheless, several inmates testified that they never heard any arguments nor saw an altercation specifically between Henderson and ONeal. Also, all the Clay County jail officers who testified said they never received any complaints or grievances regarding issues between ONeal and Henderson.
¶6. On March 15, 2019, inmates were served breakfast around 4:00 a.m. When asked about ONeal’s demeanor that morning, Gann testified that ONeal was “[h]appy ․ he was fixing to get out of jail.” A few hours after breakfast, Henderson lightly knocked on Hendersons cell door and stated in a “normal” tone that his cellmate had hung himself. Alarmed, the other inmates in the north zone began kicking and beating against their cell doors and yelling “man down, man down” to get the guards’ attention.
¶7. Officer Gail Miles was one of the officers on duty that morning. When she heard the commotion coming from the north zone, she quickly alerted two trustees, Rafeal Hamilton and Frank Weatherspoon, to assist her. Hamilton testified that when Officer Gail unlocked Cell N-2, Henderson rushed out, nearly running over Officer Gail. Inside the cell, they observed ONeal’s body “slumped over on the floor with the telephone cord wrapped around his neck.” ONeal was unresponsive, so Hamilton and Weatherspoon lifted his body, unwrapped the cord from around his neck, and laid him down on the floor in the hallway. Officer Gail then called for medical assistance and placed Henderson in a processing cell by himself. She also alerted her chain of command, which included Sergeant Anthony Cummings, Captain Jeremy Bell, and Major Steven Young. After the paramedics arrived, they assessed ONeal’s injuries and contacted the coroner.
¶8. Mississippi Bureau of Investigation (MBI) was assigned to investigate the case, and MBI Agent Vernon Hathcock served as the lead investigator. Officers from the Clay County jail took the initial steps in the investigation and remained available to assist MBI. Captain Bell secured the scene and took pictures of the north zone, the inside of Cell N-2, ONeal’s body, and close-up pictures of the injuries to ONeal’s neck. Sergeant Cummings interviewed some of the inmates who were in the north zone when the incident occurred. He also reviewed the surveillance footage and turned it over to Agent Hathcock. Major Young worked more directly with MBI throughout the investigation. He retrieved a boiled egg from ONeal’s sock and a sausage, biscuit, and Bible from ONeal’s pocket. He also assisted Agent Hathcock with interviewing and taking pictures of Henderson.
¶9. In his initial statement on the day in question, Henderson said that ONeal had hung himself. However, in a subsequent interview conducted the next day, Henderson recounted a different version of what led to ONeal’s death. Agent Hathcock and Major Young read Henderson his Miranda rights,
1
which he waived, and they videotaped his new statement. During this interview, Henderson alleged that while he was asleep on his rack, ONeal began pulling at his feet. Then he claimed that ONeal either attempted to (or did) bite him. Henderson said that he jumped off of his rack and tried to calm him down, but then ONeal tried to put the phone cord around Hendersons neck. Henderson claimed he reversed the situation and put the phone cord around ONeal’s neck, strangled him until he stopped moving, and then got back in his rack and went to sleep. Major Young testified that during the second interview, Hendersons demeanor was “calm, matter of fact.” He also revealed that Henderson never mentioned ONeal possessing a weapon or threatening to kill him before the altercation.
¶10. In an effort to corroborate an alleged physical altercation between Henderson and ONeal, Agent Hathcock and Major Young took pictures of Henderson and examined his body for any marks, scratches, or bruises. Major Young claimed that “generally the day after ․ bruises are more—they stand out more than they would from initially after an altercation.” The pictures revealed no marks, scratches, or bruises on Hendersons face, neck, arms, or hands that would indicate a physical altercation. Only some redness and bruising appeared on the back of Hendersons hands. Major Young testified that after examining Henderson and reviewing the photos, he did not find any evidence consistent with someone who was fighting for his life. He also said that in his experience as an investigator, it is very common for “suspects to change their story once theyve spoken with investigators and they hear ․ some of the evidence ․ and then they tend to make their story fit with the evidence.”
¶11. ONeal’s body was sent to the Mississippi State Medical Examiners Office. Dr. David Arboe performed the autopsy to determine ONeal’s cause of death and prepared a report detailing his findings. At trial, Dr. Arboe testified about the process he undertook to examine ONeal’s body. He explained the key indicators that differentiate strangulation autopsies from hanging autopsies. Then he revealed that ONeal’s head and neck injuries were consistent with strangulation. Dr. Arboe also testified that he received a statement from the coroner, a “re-enactment” of how the body was found, and several pictures that were taken of ONeal and the telephone cord that was used to strangle him. This evidence further confirmed that ONeal’s death was caused by strangulation.
¶12. In addition to the jail officers and the medical examiner, the State also called several inmates who were housed in the north zone on the day in question. All of them had positive recollections about ONeal: Rafael Hamilton described ONeal as a “happy-go-lucky guy․ [H]e aint bring no harm to nobody and nobody never”; Ethan OBrian said that ONeal was “polite” and “stayed to himself”; Justin McNutt said that ONeal was “humble” and an “all-around good guy.” Captain Bell said that ONeal was a “good guy. He was quiet. He really didnt bother anybody.”
¶13. At the conclusion of the States case-in-chief, Henderson moved for a directed verdict. The court denied this motion and advised Henderson of his right to testify; however, Henderson chose not to do so. During jury instructions, Henderson did not seek a lesser-included-offense jury instruction after being advised by the court. The Clay County Circuit Court jury ultimately found Henderson guilty of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. On June 3, 2022, Henderson filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The court denied that motion on June 17, 2022. Henderson then filed his notice of appeal on June 23, 2022.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶14. Rulings on the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed de novo. Turner v. State, 291 So. 3d 376, 383 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). In considering whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and decide if rational jurors could have found the State proved each element of the crime.” Johnson v. State, 310 So. 3d 328, 331 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). “We are not required to decide—and in fact we must refrain from deciding—whether we think the State proved the elements; rather, we must decide whether a reasonable juror could rationally say that the State did.” Id.; accord Lenoir v. State, 222 So. 3d 273, 279 (¶25) (Miss. 2017).
¶15. Challenges to the rulings on weight of the evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Bowman v. State, 360 So. 3d 977, 996 (¶69) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022). When reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, “[o]ur role as [an] appellate court is to 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 justice.” Eaton v. State, 359 So. 3d 1081, 1086-87 (¶22) (Miss. 2023) (quoting Little v. State, 233 So. 3d 288, 289 (¶1) (Miss. 2017)). “A new trial based on the weight of the evidence should be granted only in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.” Alvarado v. State, 343 So. 3d 391, 399 (¶26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting Clark v. State, 237 So. 3d 844, 847 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)).
DISCUSSION
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
A. The Weathersby Rule
¶16. Henderson asserts that he was entitled to a directed verdict pursuant to the “Weathersby rule.” However, after a review of the record, we find that this case does not meet the requirements for the rule to apply. “The Weathersby rule essentially is a specific kind of challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.” Figueroa v. State, 337 So. 3d 1104, 1113 (¶30) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Green v. State, 614 So. 2d 926, 932 (Miss. 1992)). The rule holds:
[W]here the defendant or the defendants 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, 147 So. 481, 482 (1933). “If the Weathersby rule applies and the defendants version affords an absolute legal defense, the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.” Parvin v. State, 113 So. 3d 1243, 1252 (¶32) (Miss. 2013) (quoting Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 174 (Miss. 1994)). However, there are limitations to the Weathersby rule, and our Supreme Court has recognized that “it is a rare case that meets all of the requirements of the Weathersby rule.” McQuarters v. State, 45 So. 3d 643, 650 (¶21) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Sartain v. State, 311 So. 2d 343, 345 (Miss. 1975)). “One limitation on the Weathersby rule is that it does not apply when the defendant gives inconsistent accounts of the killing prior to and at trial.” Figueroa v. State, 337 So. 3d 1104, 1113 (¶31) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (emphasis added) (citing Parvin, 113 So. 3d at 1252 (¶34)).
¶17. Here, Henderson gave inconsistent accounts of the murder to the investigators. Initially, Henderson told the investigators that ONeal had hung himself with the telephone cord. However, the next day, Henderson completely changed his story. In his second interview, Henderson alleged that ONeal had attacked him and that it was a “life-or-death situation,” so he strangled ONeal with the telephone cord in self-defense. These inconsistent versions given before trial preclude Henderson from invoking the Weathersby rule.
¶18. Additionally, “Weathersby does not automatically apply when the defendant is the only eyewitness. Rather, the Court has held that Weathersby has no application where the defendants version is patently unreasonable, or contradicted by physical facts.” Owens v. State, 269 So. 3d 1280, 1287 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (internal quotation mark omitted) (citing Jones v. State, 154 So. 3d 872, 878 (¶17) (Miss. 2014)). Both of Hendersons versions of ONeal’s death were substantially contradicted by the medical examiners testimony, photographs of Hendersons body, and a diagram of the cell. The medical examiner provided detailed testimony about his examination of ONeal’s injuries and his conclusions on how his cause of death was consistent with ligature strangulation as opposed to hanging. After Henderson dropped the hanging theory, he admitted to investigators that he strangled ONeal with the telephone cord because ONeal had attacked him. However, there was also evidence to disprove this account. The investigators took pictures of Henderson the day of and the day after the incident. No marks, scratches, or bruises were on Hendersons face, neck, arms, or hands. It is quite difficult to believe that Henderson did not have any injuries on him, yet he claimed that he was in a “life or death situation” and had to fight for his life. Only bruising was found on his hands, which was consistent with him strangling ONeal to death. The diagram of the cell also revealed a discrepancy in Hendersons altercation story. Henderson told the investigators that ONeal was able to reach the phone from where they were standing near Hendersons bed. However, the diagram showed that the distance between the mounted telephone and the bed was “86 inches or approximately 7 foot, 2 inches.” The telephone was nowhere near the bed, and ONeal’s arm could not stretch eighty-three inches from the bed to the phone. Additionally, several inmates testified that ONeal was a “polite,” “humble,” “happy-go-lucky guy” who did not bother anyone and did not have any issues with other inmates.
¶19. Furthermore, Henderson never offered witnesses nor testified to sufficiently establish his version of the events. Instead, he relies on his unsworn statements to law enforcement that he made during his second interview. “However, no appellate court in Mississippi has ever held that unsworn statements to law enforcement may be used for purposes of a Weathersby analysis.” Bartolo v. State, 32 So. 3d 522, 530 (¶31) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). For all of these reasons, the Weathersby rule is inapplicable in this case.
B. Sufficient Evidence Presented
¶20. Even without the Weathersby rule, Hendersons argument still fails because sufficient evidence was presented at trial for a rational juror to find Henderson guilty of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶21. Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-19(1)(a) defines first-degree murder as the “killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means or in any manner ․ [w]hen done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed.” Accordingly, to convict Henderson of first-degree murder, the prosecution had to prove that Henderson (1) killed ONeal (2) without authority of law (3) but with the deliberate design to effect his death. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(a). It is undisputed that Henderson strangled ONeal; therefore, we will address the remaining two elements.
¶22. Regarding the second element, Henderson argues that the State failed to prove that he did not act in self-defense. “However, this Court has held the issue of justifiable self-defense presents a question of the weight and credibility of the evidence rather than sufficiency and is to be decided by the jury.” Eaton v. State, 359 So. 3d 1081, 1086 (¶22) (Miss. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Newell v. State, 175 So. 3d 1260, 1268 (¶6) (Miss. 2015)). Accordingly, we will address this issue below concerning the weight of the evidence.
¶23. Regarding the third element, Henderson argues that since the State failed to prove deliberate design, the appropriate conviction should have been manslaughter. “Deliberate design connotes an intent to kill.” Holliman v. State, 178 So. 3d 689, 698 (¶19) (Miss. 2015). Our Supreme Court “has held that ‘unless one expresses his intent, the only method by which intent may be prove[d] is by showing the acts of the person involved at the time, and by showing the circumstances surrounding the incident.’ ” Id. (quoting Morris v. State, 748 So. 2d 143, 147 (¶17) (Miss. 1999)). Additionally, our Court has held:
The essence of the required intent is that the accused must have had some appreciable time for reflection and consideration before committing the fatal act. Deliberate design to kill a person may be formed very quickly, and perhaps only moments before the act of consummating the intent. Furthermore, deliberate design may be inferred through the intentional use of any instrument which, based on its manner of use, is calculated to produce death or serious bodily injury.
Ashmore v. State, 302 So. 3d 707, 714 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Parvin v. State, 212 So. 3d 863, 868 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)).
¶24. Here, Henderson used a telephone cord to strangle ONeal and held it there until he stopped breathing. The evidence presented showed that Henderson had both a weight and age advantage over ONeal.
2
Even if Henderson did not originally intend to kill ONeal, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that during the time he overpowered ONeal and strangled him to death, he formed the requisite intent to kill ONeal. See Alvarado v. State, 343 So. 3d 391, 397 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022). After all, “[d]eliberate design to kill a person may be formed very quickly, and perhaps only moments before the act of consummating the intent.” Ashmore, 302 So. 3d at 714 (¶20). Intent can also be inferred from the fact that Henderson did not try to call out for help when he saw that ONeal was no longer moving. Instead, he left ONeal’s body with the telephone cord around his neck, got back in his rack, and went to sleep.
¶25. Additionally, Hendersons multiple statements to investigators regarding ONeal’s death presented conflicting evidence to the jury. “This conflicting evidence was for the jurys consideration and determination on the question of Hendersons intent.” Christian v. State, 207 So. 3d 1207, 1218 (¶50) (Miss. 2016). It is not our role to make an independent resolution; rather, it was solely up to the jury to resolve this conflict and determine if Henderson intended to kill ONeal. Considering the multiple versions of the incident, coupled with all the evidence the State presented, a reasonable jury could rationally conclude that Henderson killed ONeal with the deliberate design to effect ONeal’s death.
¶26. Accepting all the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we find that a rational juror could have found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Henderson killed ONeal with deliberate design.
II. Weight of the Evidence
¶27. Henderson also asserts that the trial court erred by denying his alternative motion for a new trial because his conviction was contrary to the weight of the evidence. We disagree.
¶28. “It is well established that the jury determines matters of weight, credibility, and conflicting evidence.” Beasley v. State, 362 So. 3d 112, 126 (¶50) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023) (citing McCool v. State, 328 So. 3d 173, 184-85 (¶47) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021)). “[W]e 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.” Little, 233 So. 3d at 289 (¶1). As previously noted, self-defense is a question of weight and credibility for the jury to decide. Eaton, 359 So. 3d at 1089 (¶22). “A successful self-defense argument requires that the jury believe it was objectively reasonable for the [defendant] to believe he was in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm.” Id.
¶29. Hendersons defense failed likely because he did not provide any evidence that ONeal threatened his life or possessed a weapon. The only items recovered from ONeal were a Bible, a sausage, a biscuit, and a hard-boiled egg. Henderson claimed that an altercation between them resulted in a “life or death situation,” but no injuries were found on Hendersons body to suggest that he was fighting for his life. In fact, no evidence showed that an altercation between Henderson and ONeal had ever even occurred. All the Clay County jail officers who testified said they never received any complaints regarding issues between Henderson and ONeal. Sergeant Cummings testified that when issues exist between inmates, they can notify correctional officers and fill out a grievance form, which could lead to inmates being moved to a different cell. Sergeant Cummings said he never received a grievance form from Henderson. Additionally, the inmates who were housed in the north zone testified that they did not hear nor see an altercation between Henderson and ONeal at any point before Henderson killed ONeal. Most of them said that ONeal never had a problem with any inmates and stayed to himself.
¶30. It was ultimately up to the jury to either believe Hendersons account of the incident or the abundant evidence and ten witnesses presented by the State. Henderson chose not to testify or call any witnesses to substantiate his account of ONeal’s death. The jury simply did not find Hendersons self-defense story credible. He gave inconsistent accounts, and the State provided ample evidence that refuted both of his accounts. Here, we cannot say that the jurys verdict was so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction a unconscionable injustice. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hendersons alternative motion for a new trial.
CONCLUSION
¶31. Based on our review of the record, Hendersons challenges to his conviction are not persuasive. The evidence presented by the State was sufficient to prove to a rational juror all three elements of first-degree murder were met beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the jurys verdict was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The trial court properly denied Hendersons motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and his alternative motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we affirm the trial courts judgment of conviction and sentencing.
¶32. AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
2
. Henderson was twenty years old and weighed 160 pounds, while ONeal was fifty-four years old and weighed 150 pounds.
WESTBROOKS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, SMITH AND EMFINGER, JJ., CONCUR.