1997) (culpable negligence manslaughter instruction denied where evidence showed that defendant intentionally went to his truck to get his shotgun, then entered the building, shot the door and loaded and fired three more shots through the door); Hurns v. State, 616 So.2d 313, 315 (Miss. 1993) (culpable negligence manslaughter instruction denied where evidence showed that defendant hit victim with multiple blows to the head with blunt object over short period of time); Goff v. State, 778 So.2d 779 (Miss.Ct.App. 2000) (culpable negligence manslaughter instruction denied where evidence showed that defendant intentionally hit and kicked victim two times). ¶ 23.
Id. ¶ 10. Shumpert also cites Goff v. State, 778 So.2d 779 (Miss.Ct.App. 2000). The defendant in that case was convicted for hitting a bar patron and kicking him twice.
¶23. A defendant charged with murder is not automatically entitled to a manslaughter jury instruction without an evidentiary basis. See Hurns v. State, 616 So.2d 313, 320 (Miss. 1993); Goff v. State, 778 So.2d 779, 782 (¶¶7-8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000); Sanders v. State, 781 So.2d 114, 119-20 (¶¶14-17) (Miss. 2001). While a criminal defendant "is entitled to jury instructions that present his theory of the case even if the supporting evidence `is weak, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility,'" a defendant does not have an absolute right to a jury instruction that presents his theory of the case.
“An intentional act that causes death cannot constitute culpable negligence.” Goff v. State, 778 So.2d 779, 782 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (citing Hurns v. State, 616 So.2d 313, 321 (Miss.1993)). In cases where a conviction for culpable-negligence manslaughter was upheld, there was at least some evidence of negligence.
1996) ). “An intentional act that causes death cannot constitute culpable negligence.” Goff v. State, 778 So.2d 779, 782 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (citing Hurns v. State, 616 So.2d 313, 321 (Miss.1993) ).
"An intentional act that causes death cannot constitute culpable negligence." Goff v. State, 778 So. 2d 779, 782 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Hurns v. State, 616 So. 2d 313, 321 (Miss. 1993)).
In matters relating to new trial motions, the trial court's decisions are reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. Goff v. State, 778 So.2d 779 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App. 2000). Further, as to issues of credibility of testimony offered in support of the motion, the trial court sits as finder of fact and the court's findings on appeal are entitled to deference since the court observes the witnesses first-hand and is better positioned to assess matters of credibility.