E-Filed Document Jul 17 2023 19:16:00 2022-KA-00988-COA Pages: 3

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

ANTHONY GERALD FOX APPELLANT

VS. No. 2022-KA-00988-COA

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF ON BEHALF OF AMICUS CURIAE,

HINDS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT

COMES NOW, the State of Mississippi, by and through the Hinds County District
Attorney, and files this, its Motion for Leave of Court, pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Appellate
Procedure 29, to file the attached Brief of an Amicus Curiae, and in support thereof, would show
the following:

1. The Hinds County District Attorney’s Office brought the instant prosecution on behalf of
the citizens of Hinds County and the State of Mississippi. Accordingly, the undersigned
submits that the Hinds Count District Attorney’s Office has substantial legitimate interests
that will likely be affected by the outcome of the case and that, based on the following, and
Appellee’s peculiar position in this matter, said interests will not be adequately protected
by those already a party to the case. See MRAP 29(a).

2. On Monday, July 10, 2023, at approximately 4:30 p.m., the District Attorney’s Office was
notified by the Attorney General’s Office that it would be confessing error in the instant
matter on sufficiency of the evidence. The State then filed its brief at 4:35 p.m. The Trial
Court was not notified of the State’s position.

3. The Attorney General’s position follows her October 10, 2022, decision to not oppose bail
for a criminal defendant, duly indicted of murder by the Hinds County Grand Jury and
convicted of manslaughter by a Hinds County jury, at a time when, based on this court’s
docket, the record had yet to be filed in the instant matter.

4. Accordingly, pursuant to MRAP 29(a), the undersigned submits that the Attorney General’s
representation in this matter, on behalf of the State of Mississippi, is inadequate and her
brief insufficient.

5. The undersigned submits that the Hinds County District Attorney and the Trial Court,
deserve to have the verdict in this matter, as in all matters, adequately represented on
appeal. Further, it is this Court, and not the Attorney General, who is to decide the integrity
of the jury’s verdict.

6. Furthermore, both the appellant and the appellee have advanced an argument in this matter
that is a misapprehension of this Court’s holding in Brown v. State, 304 So. 3d 692 (Miss.
 Ct. App. 2020) and the misapplication would result in the creation of an erroneous legal
standard.

7. This Court has recognized that, even when a party confesses error, this Court has “an
obligation to examine the record to determine whether the conviction should stand or be
reversed. McCollum v. State, 186 So. 3d 948, 953 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Sibron v.
New York, 392 U.S. 40, 58, 88 S. Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968)). And “if the record
can be conveniently examined and such examination reveals a sound and unmistakable
basis or ground upon which the judgment may be safely affirmed, we may disregard . . .
and affirm.” Walker v. Bailey, 270 So. 3d 195, 198 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting
Poole v. Walton, 214 So.3d 1064, 1066 (¶ 5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)). Despite the ease at
which this Court can review the record and safely affirm, the Hinds County District
Attorney’s Office seeks to assist this Court by filing the attached amicus brief pursuant to
Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, as such action is in the interest of justice.

8. Accordingly, the Amici submit that its brief will assist this Court in its analysis and the
application of the appropriate legal standard.

Respectfully submitted,

Joe Hemleben
Assistant District Attorney
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, JOE HEMLEBEN, hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing

pleading or other paper with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which sent notification

of such filing to all counsel of record.

This the 17th day of July, 2023.

/s/ Joe Hemleben

Joe Hemleben
Assistant District Attorney
E-Filed Document Jul 17 2023 19:16:00 2022-KA-00988-COA Pages: 19
E-Filed Document Jul 10 2023 16:35:01 2022-KA-00988-COA Pages: 25

_____________________________________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI

No. 2022-KA-00988-COA

ANTHONY GERALD FOX

Appellant

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Appellee

On Appeal from the Circuit Court

of Hinds County, Mississippi
First Judicial District

BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE

LYNN FITCH
Attorney General of Mississippi

CASEY B. FARMER
Special Assistant Attorney General
Mississippi Bar No. 104435
P.O. Box 220
Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0220
Telephone: (601) 359-2866
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Appellee

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

_____________________________________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI

No. 2022-KA-00988-COA

ANTHONY GERALD FOX

Appellant

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Appellee

On Appeal from the Circuit Court

of Hinds County, Mississippi
First Judicial District

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

Under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(1),
governmental parties need not furnish a certificate of interested persons.

LYNN FITCH
Attorney General of Mississippi

/s/ Casey B. Farmer

CASEY B. FARMER
Special Assistant Attorney General

Counsel for Appellee

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ......................................... i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................iii

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ................................................................. 5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................. 5

A. Factual Background ................................................................ 5

B. Procedural Background......................................................... 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................. 12

ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 12

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................. 21

ii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)
Cases

Brown v. State,
304 So. 3d 692 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) ......................................1-5, 12-17

Ealey v. State,
158 So. 3d 283 (Miss. 2015) ................................................................ 19

Evans v. State,
562 So. 2d 91 (Miss. 1990) .................................................................. 13

Hawkins v. State,
101 So. 3d 638 (Miss. 2012) ................................................................ 15

Jackson v. State,
441 So. 2d 1382 (Miss. 1983) .............................................................. 15

Moore v. State,
117 So. 2d 469 (Miss. 1960) ................................................................ 13

Phillips v. State,
379 So. 2d 318 (Miss. 1980) .................................................................. 2

Tate v. State,
16 So. 3d 699 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) .................................................... 13

Statute

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-47 ....................................................................... 13

Rule

Miss. R. App. P. 28 .....................................................................................i

iii
 INTRODUCTION
The State agrees that this Court should reverse Anthony Fox’s
conviction and render judgment in his favor.
This case arises from the death of George Robinson after a struggle

with Jackson police officers. On January 13, 2019, Fox and other officers
were investigating a murder. After seeing Robinson make an apparent
drug deal from a parked car, Fox approached and ordered Robinson out
of the car. Robinson failed to follow Fox’s commands or to show his hands.
A struggle ensued. Two fellow officers came to Fox’s aid. The struggle
continued and, once the officers got Robinson out of the car, he continued
to struggle against them, holding his arms at his chest to hide something
in his hands. The officers maneuvered him to the ground and continued
trying to pull his hands apart. Robinson dragged his hands to his mouth,

where he ate what he was trying to hide. He then stopped struggling. In

the struggle, Robinson got a small, superficial abrasion on his forehead.
He had no other visible injuries or symptoms of injuries. He was arrested,
charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, and released at the
scene. Several hours later, Robinson––who was 62, had health problems,
and was on medication––suffered a seizure and two days later died of a
subdural hematoma. A jury convicted Fox of culpable-negligence
manslaughter—the core element of which is “negligence so gross as to be
tantamount to a wanton disregard of, or utter indifference to, the safety
of human life.” Brown v. State, 304 So. 3d 692, 696 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020).

1
 That conviction should not stand. Our Supreme Court has long
warned about the dangers of the culpable-negligence statute. In

particular, that Court has cautioned that juries may be “overinclined to

convict on proof of what is in fact no more than simple negligence.”
Phillips v. State, 379 So. 2d 318, 320 (Miss. 1980). The culpable-
negligence-manslaughter statute demands more: a showing “beyond
every reasonable doubt” of “wanton disregard” or “utter indifference” to
the safety of human life—a “high burden.” Brown, 304 So. 3d at 696.

Because juries may convict on less than what culpable-negligence-

manslaughter statute demands, “there have been more reversals in this
class of cases than perhaps in any other.” Phillips, 379 So. 2d at 320.
In line with those principles, this Court recently reversed a
culpable-negligence-manslaughter conviction on facts that are strikingly
on point here. In Brown v. State, 304 So. 3d 692, a security guard (Brown)
tried to remove a (possibly unruly) patron from a bar by wrapping his
arms around the patron’s neck, choking him, taking him to the ground,
and trying to handcuff him. Id. at 694. The patron—who had been trying
to break up a fight between two others—fell unconscious and later died
of “complications of hypertensive cardiovascular disease associated with
a physical altercation.” Id. The patron had only superficial visible
injuries. Id. at 694–95.
This Court ruled that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of
law to sustain Brown’s conviction for culpable-negligence manslaughter.

2
304 So. 3d at 696–97. The Court contrasted Brown’s case with two cases
affirming homicide convictions that involved a physical struggle and a

victim with health problems. Id. at 696. Those latter cases involved
“multiple blows to the victims resulting in severe blunt-force trauma”
during “extensive struggles.” Id. (emphases added). In one case the
defendant “bludgeon[ed]” the victim’s head with a tire iron during a
robbery; in the other the defendant inflicted “severe trauma” to the
victim’s “face, neck, and arms,” leaving the victim with a “bloody nose”

and a right eye that was “swollen shut.” Id. Those extensive struggles,
involving repeated blows to the head, contrast sharply with “Brown’s
singular act of attempting to remove” the patron from the bar. Id.
Although that act “may have been negligent,” “there was no evidence of
severe trauma or trauma in multiple locations that could constitute gross
negligence,” the only injuries to the victim were visibly slight, and there
was no “extensive struggle” of the sort present in those other cases, id. at
696–97—even though Brown wrapped his arms around the patron’s neck,
choked him, took him to the ground, and tried to handcuff him, id. at 696.
“[T]hese facts,” this Court ruled, “were insufficient to demonstrate
negligence so gross as to be tantamount to a wanton disregard of, or utter
indifference to, the safety of human life.” Id. at 697 (internal quotation
marks omitted). The Court therefore rendered judgment for Brown.
This Court’s decision in Brown requires reversing Fox’s conviction
and rendering judgment in his favor. In every way that matters, the facts

3
here are indistinguishable from Brown. Like Brown, Fox engaged in a
“singular act”: trying to secure Robinson in the face of his possible

wrongdoing and the possible danger that he presented. 304 So. 3d at 696.
In neither case—Brown’s or Fox’s—was there an “extensive” struggle
involving “multiple,” “severe” blows to the victim. Id. There was only a
lesser struggle in both Brown’s and Fox’s cases: Brown had a struggle
with the victim that involved a choking, takedown, and handcuffing. Fox
had a struggle with Robinson in which he assertedly slammed Robinson

on the ground—yet that struggle was prolonged and made harder by

Robinson’s continual resistance and failure to follow commands. See id.
Like the patron in Brown, Robinson suffered only superficial visible
injuries: in Robinson’s case, a small abrasion to his forehead, no other
visible injuries, and no other symptoms of injuries. See id. at 696–97.
Thus, just as in Brown, here “there was no evidence of severe
trauma or trauma in multiple locations that could constitute gross
negligence,” the only injuries to the victim were visibly slight, and there
was no “extensive struggle” involving “multiple blows to the victims
resulting in severe blunt-force trauma” that could sustain a culpable-
negligence finding—even if Fox’s effort to arrest Robinson “may have
been negligent.” Id. at 696. Under Brown, “these facts” are “insufficient
to demonstrate negligence so gross as to be tantamount to a wanton
disregard of, or utter indifference to, the safety of human life.” Id. at 697
(internal quotation marks omitted).

4
 This Court should reverse Fox’s conviction and render judgment in
his favor.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Was the evidence at trial sufficient to sustain Fox’s conviction for
culpable-negligence manslaughter, particularly given this Court’s

decision in Brown v. State, 304 So. 3d 692 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020), reversing
such a conviction and rendering judgment for the defendant, due to
insufficient evidence, on facts that are materially indistinguishable from
those in Fox’s case?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Factual Background
On the night of January 13, 2019, Officer Fox and other Jackson
Police Department officers—including Sergeant Lincoln Lampley, Officer
Desmond Barney, and Officer George Moore—were searching for a

suspect in the carjacking and murder of a local pastor. Tr. 492–93. A tip
led them to Jones Avenue. Tr. 495. When the officers arrived, they split
up to interview nearby residents. Tr. 497, 930.

Fox approached a white car parked in the street. Tr. 497. He saw a
woman standing with a handful of cash at the driver’s window. Tr. 1438.
He watched as she “stuffed the money inside of the vehicle,” which Fox

suspected was a drug deal between her and the driver, George Robinson.
Tr. 1438, 1471–72. Fox told the woman to stop, but she walked away. Tr.
1438. Once Robinson saw Fox, he “automatically [began] to start reaching

5
with his right hand in between the driver’s seat and the center console.”
Tr. 1439. In Fox’s experience, people kept guns in that area. Tr. 1440.

Fearing that Robinson was reaching for a gun, Fox loudly ordered him to
“stop reaching.” Tr. 1440. Robinson ignored him. Tr. 1440–41.
Because Robinson refused to show his hands, Fox opened the
driver’s door and grabbed Robinson’s arm. Tr. 1441. Robinson continued
to reach between the seat and console. Tr. 1441. He then twisted his body
toward the console, which pulled Fox “halfway inside of the door frame”

of the car. Tr. 1441–42. Fox commanded Robinson to show his hands and
stop reaching between the seat and console. Tr. 1442. Fearing for his
safety, Fox unholstered his gun and continued ordering Robinson to show
his hands. Tr. 1442. Once Fox heard Sergeant Lampley approach, Fox
holstered his gun. Tr. 1442.
While conducting field interviews nearby, Sergeant Lampley heard
“loud commands coming from Detective Fox.” Tr. 502. Fox’s voice sounded
“distressed,” so Lampley went to help. Tr. 502. Lampley saw Robinson
“reaching in between his seat with one hand at first, then two hands” like
he was trying to retrieve something. Tr. 503, 506. Lampley “drew [his]
weapon out of fear [for] Detective Fox’s life that Mr. Robinson may be
attempting to retrieve a weapon ... due to the nature in which he was
reaching and he wasn’t following commands at that time.” Tr. 504. He
saw Fox grab Robinson’s left arm to stop him from reaching between the
seats and to remove him from the car. Tr. 503–04. Lampley said that Fox

6
and Robinson were “in a pretty good tug of war” as Fox tried to get
Robinson out of the car. Tr. 504. He said that Fox continued to give

Robinson “loud commands to exit the vehicle and stop reaching.” Tr. 504.
And he saw Robinson continue to stuff “both of his hands down in
between the driver’s seat and the center console.” Tr. 504. Taking “a
really, really, really, big risk,” Lampley holstered his gun and reached in
the car to assist Fox. Tr. 504.
Together, the officers managed to remove Robinson from the car.

Tr. 504. Lampley was on Robinson’s right side, and Fox was on his left.
Tr. 507. Lampley testified that he and Fox were trying to hold Robinson
up but Robinson was “using his weight to pull [them] down” and “trying
to go to the ground.” Tr. 507–08. Robinson’s arms were crossed on his
chest, and Lampley thought he was hiding something in his hands. Tr.
507.
As both officers struggled to keep Robinson standing, Robinson
dropped to his knees and then fell on his stomach. Tr. 508. He continued
to resist the officers’ attempts to move his arms from underneath him,
“using all his body weight to secure whatever he ha[d] in his hands.” Tr.
508. As the struggle continued, Robinson moved his hands to his face,
then stopped resisting. Tr. 512, 540. He stopped resisting after “he got
whatever he had in his hand to his mouth and swallowed it.” Tr. 540.
Officer Barney also testified to what occurred during the struggle.
When the struggle began, he was conducting field interviews nearby. Tr.

7
930. He heard Fox yelling “show me your hands, stop reaching, show me
your hands, stop moving, stop reaching.” Tr. 931. Fox sounded “like either

he was in danger or somebody else was in danger.” Tr. 931–32. Barney

approached the car. Tr. 934–35. He saw Robinson reaching between the
seats, with “his hands completely in between the seat and the center
console.” Tr. 934–35. Believing that Robinson was reaching for a gun,
Barney unholstered his gun. Tr. 935–37. Barney saw Robinson resist the
efforts to remove him from the car and Fox and Lampley’s efforts to keep

him upright. Tr. 939, 941. Barney also saw Robinson “get down to the
ground and continue[ ] to try to get his hands to his mouth.” Tr. 942–43,
951. Noticing that Robinson was “just trying to swallow something,” Fox
prevented Barney from using his pepper spray on Robinson. Tr. 945.
Officer Moore testified similarly to Barney. He heard Fox order
Robinson to show his hands. Tr. 1224. When the officers removed
Robinson from the car, he saw Robinson tuck his hands and arms close
to his body. Tr. 1225. Robinson “weigh[ed] himself down to get more ...
leverage away from them, trying to pry his arms away.” Tr. 1226.
Robinson stopped resisting once he got what he was holding in his mouth.
Tr. 1227.
Although not privy to Robinson’s actions inside the car, two
witnesses saw the officers remove Robinson from the car. Both witnesses
testified that Fox acted forcefully when removing Robinson from the car
and that Fox “threw” or “slammed” Robinson to the ground. Tr. 377, 387,

8
445, 455–56. Both saw Robinson’s head hit the ground. Tr. 388, 446. One
of these witnesses, Ronnie Arnold, testified that Robinson had recently

had a stroke. Tr. 372. Arnold thought the stroke accounted for Robinson’s
failure to comply with Fox’s orders. Tr. 421.
Once Robinson stopped resisting and stood up, the officers noticed
a small scrape over his eye. Tr. 1210, 1228, 1133, 1155. Fox called an
ambulance. Tr. 1449. An EMT testified that Robinson “refused medical
attention,” but Fox “requested a small bandage for [Robinson’s]

forehead.” Tr. 634. The EMT said that the scrape, which was no bigger
than his thumbnail, had stopped bleeding by the time he arrived. Tr. 640,
658. Fox “convinced [Robinson] to allow a bandage to be applied,” but
Robinson refused further treatment. Tr. 635, 637.
The EMT testified that Robinson was alert and aware. Tr. 641–42.
He explained that Robinson had the highest rating on the Glasgow Coma
Scale, which indicated that his eyes were moving and working normally;
that he could communicate, understand, and talk; and that he could
stand and walk on his own. Tr. 642–43, 654.
Fox cited Robinson for failure to obey and resisting arrest before
telling him to leave the scene. Tr. 1453–55; Ex. D-5. Hours later,
Robinson had a seizure at a nearby hotel. Tr. 557. The EMTs who arrived
to treat him found him unconscious on the bed. Tr. 668. The EMTs
noticed swelling on Robinson’s head and a small scratch. Tr. 668, 772.
Robinson was taken to a local hospital, where doctors performed a

9
craniotomy to alleviate pressure on his brain from a subdural hematoma.
Tr. 819–21, 825. Robinson died on January 15. Tr. 830.

Four medical experts testified at trial—Dr. Mark LeVaughn for the

State, and Drs. Timothy Usee, Johnathan Arden, and George Russell for
Fox. Tr. 809; 1080–81; 1258; 1315. All the experts agreed that Robinson
suffered a subdural hematoma that led to his death. Tr. 832; 1083–84;
1259–60; 1294–95; 1315. Each expert agreed or conceded that it does not
require great force to cause a subdural hematoma. Tr. 832–33, 854; 1083–

84; 1096–97; 1260, 1278. And all experts agreed that Robinson’s medical
conditions—particularly his use of blood thinners—were contributing
factors for his death. Tr. 846, 860–61; 1084; 1261–62.
Dr. LeVaughn testified that the swelling that EMTs saw was likely
related to the forehead abrasions and was the effect of a blunt-force
injury, which (he clarified) is not a comment on the amount of force or
impact but means that “an impact occurred” and “it’s not a sharp object.”
Tr. 830, 874. He explained that an abrasion is a superficial, minor injury
that may not need treatment and that subdural hemorrhages can develop
from “very minor trauma.” Tr. 832, 854. Dr. LeVaughn saw no other
evidence of traumatic injury to Robinson’s chest, neck, or abdomen. Tr.
829. Because Robinson was taking Plavix, an anti-coagulant, he was
more susceptible to bruising and bleeding. Tr. 842–42. Dr. LeVaughn
agreed that Robinson’s age (62), the side effects of his blood-thinner
medication, and his hypertension were all contributing factors for his

10
death. Tr. 860–61. Fox’s experts agreed that Robinson was more
susceptible to subdural hemorrhages from minor impact due to his drug

use and hypertension. Tr. 1083–84; 1261–62.

B. Procedural Background
After an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi declined to
prosecute Fox, Lampley, or Barney. CP 1032. A federal district court
dismissed a civil-rights lawsuit brought by Robinson’s family against

Fox, ruling that Fox was entitled to qualified immunity. CP 1046–67

(Reeves, J.).
Yet a Hinds County grand jury indicted Fox on one count of second-
degree murder for Robinson’s death. CP 14. The indictment alleged that
Robinson died “during the commission of an act eminently dangerous to
others and evincing a depraved heart” by Fox’s acting in concert with or
aiding and abetting Lampley and Barney. CP 14. The indictment alleged
that Fox and those other officers “used physical force” on Robinson,
including “slamming ... Robinson head first into the roadway pavement
as well as striking and kicking ... Robinson multiple times in the head
and chest.” CP 14.
Lampley and Barney were indicted and tried separately. CP 27.
After the State rested, the trial court granted them directed verdicts. CP
1013.

11
 A Hinds County jury found Fox guilty of culpable-negligence
manslaughter. CP 878. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years’

imprisonment, with fifteen years suspended and five to serve. CP 953.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Fox presents several issues on appeal. Fox Br. ix. This Court should
reach only one issue—Fox’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
This Court’s decision in Brown v. State, 304 So. 3d 692 (Miss. Ct. App.
2020), compels the conclusion that the evidence at trial was insufficient

to sustain Fox’s culpable-negligence-manslaughter conviction. In Brown

this Court concluded, on facts materially indistinguishable from those
here, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a culpable-negligence-
manslaughter conviction. This Court therefore reversed the conviction
and rendered judgment for the defendant. The Court should reach the
same conclusion and same result here.

ARGUMENT
This Court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by

examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and
determining whether any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Brown v.

State, 304 So. 3d 692, 695 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020).

After thorough review, the State has concluded that the evidence at
trial was insufficient as a matter of law to allow a rational juror to convict

12
Fox of culpable-negligence manslaughter. The evidence does not allow a
finding that Fox acted with “negligence of a higher degree than that

which in civil cases is held to be gross negligence” or “negligence so gross

as to be tantamount to a wanton disregard of, or utter indifference to, the
safety of human life ... beyond every reasonable doubt.” Id. at 696–97
(quoting Moore v. State, 117 So. 2d 469, 471 (Miss. 1960)). This Court
should reverse the judgment below and render judgment in Fox’s favor.
1. Culpable-negligence manslaughter is the killing of another by

“negligence of a degree so gross as to be tantamount to a wanton

disregard of, or utter indifference to, the safety of human life.” Brown,
304 So. 3d at 695; Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-47. It is “the conscious and
wanton or reckless disregard of the probabilities of fatal consequences to
others as a result of the wilful creation of an unreasonable risk thereof.”
Tate v. State, 16 So. 3d 699, 701–02 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Evans
v. State, 562 So. 2d 91, 94 (Miss. 1990)). This means “negligence of a
higher degree than that which in civil cases is held to be gross
negligence.” Moore, 117 So. 2d at 471. And “[e]ven in civil cases,” a
defendant is liable “only for” consequences “which he should reasonably
have foreseen as something likely to happen”; he “is not liable for every
consequence which may be remotely traced back to him.” Brown, 304
So. 3d at 696. “[W]anton disregard” and “utter indifference” must be
proved “beyond every reasonable doubt.” Id.

13
 This Court applied these principles in Brown to reverse a culpable-
negligence-manslaughter conviction because “the[ ] facts” did not meet

“the high burden of culpable negligence.” 304 So. 3d at 696, 697. Brown
was a security guard in a bar. Id. at 694. One night, a fight broke out at
the bar between two men. Id. A third man, Tevin Quiney, “[a]lthough just
a patron,” “took it upon himself to remove one of the men involved from
the bar” by holding “the man’s hands behind his back while ‘trying to take
him out the door.’” Id. “Brown responded by attempting to remove Quiney

from the bar.” Id. He did so by “wrapp[ing] his arms around Quiney’s
neck,” “chok[ing] him to the ground,” then “trying to handcuff him.” Id.
Quiney fell unconscious and later died of “complications of hypertensive
cardiovascular disease associated with a physical altercation.” Id. Quiney
had superficial visible injuries—“small bruises,” “lacerations on his face,”
“redness in the eye,” “a scrape to the chin,” “injuries to ... the lip”—and
no internal injuries. Id. Those injuries may have been caused by medical
procedures used to try to help him. See id. at 694–95. Quiney (who was
5-foot-8-inches tall and weighed 367 pounds) may have been unruly: one
witness said that he was acting “kind of hostile,” including toward Brown.
Id. at 694. But the evidence did not compel that conclusion. Another
witness “stated that she had seen Quiney at the bar but had not
witnessed him acting aggressively.” Id. A jury convicted Brown of
culpable-negligence manslaughter. Id. at 695.

14
 This Court ruled that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of
law to sustain Brown’s conviction. 304 So. 3d at 696–97. The Court

contrasted Brown’s case with two cases in which the Mississippi Supreme
Court affirmed homicide convictions, against sufficiency-of-the-evidence
challenges, where (as in Brown) “there was evidence the cause of death
was a combination of heart issues and stress.” Id. at 696. In Jackson v.
State, 441 So. 2d 1382 (Miss. 1983), the Court upheld a conviction for
murder while engaged in a robbery where the defendant had, after the

robbery, beaten the victim in the head with a tire iron. Id. at 1383. And
in Hawkins v. State, 101 So. 3d 638 (Miss. 2012), the Court upheld a
conviction where the defendant inflicted “severe trauma” to the victim’s
“face, neck, and arms,” leaving the victim with “a bloody nose” and with
a right eye that was “swollen shut.” Id. at 640.
Those cases, this Court recognized, were materially different from
Brown’s. 304 So. 3d at 696. Jackson and Hawkins involved “multiple
blows to the victims resulting in severe blunt-force trauma” during
“extensive struggles.” Id. (emphases added). Those extensive struggles,
involving repeated blows to the head, contrasted sharply with “Brown’s
singular act of attempting to remove” Quiney from the bar. Id. Although
that act “may have been negligent,” “there was no evidence of severe
trauma or trauma in multiple locations that could constitute gross
negligence,” the only injuries to the victim were visibly slight, and there
was no “extensive struggle” of the sort in those other cases, id. at 696–

15
97—even though there was evidence that Brown wrapped his arms
around the patron’s neck, choked him, took him to the ground, and tried

to handcuff him, id. at 696. “[T]hese facts,” this Court ruled, “were
insufficient to demonstrate negligence so gross as to be tantamount to a
wanton disregard of, or utter indifference to, the safety of human life.”
Id. at 697 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court therefore
rendered judgment for Brown.
2. This Court’s decision in Brown requires reversing Fox’s

conviction and rendering judgment in his favor. The facts here are
materially indistinguishable from Brown.
Like Brown, Fox engaged in a “singular act”: trying to secure
Robinson in the face of his possible wrongdoing and the possible danger
that he presented. 304 So. 3d at 694, 696; see Tr. 1445–46, 1501. In
neither case—Brown’s or Fox’s—was there an “extensive” struggle
involving “multiple,” “severe” blows to the victim. 304 So. 3d at 696; see
Tr. 816–17 (no sign “of severe trauma or trauma in multiple locations”;
no significant external injuries beyond the small abrasion to his
forehead), 1442–46. Indeed, there was only a lesser struggle in both
Brown’s and Fox’s cases. Brown had a struggle with the victim that
involved a choking, takedown, and handcuffing. 304 So. 3d at 694. Fox
had a struggle with Robinson too, assertedly involving Fox slamming
Robinson on the ground—yet that struggle was incident to arrest,
prolonged and made harder by Robinson, who continually resisted and

16
failed to follow commands. See Tr. 504, 507–08, 939, 941, 1440–42, 1224–
25. Like the patron in Brown, Robinson suffered only superficial visible

injuries: in Robinson’s case, a small abrasion to his forehead, no other

visible injuries, and no other symptoms of injuries. 304 So. 3d at 696–97;
see Tr. 816–17 (no significant external injuries beyond the small abrasion
to his forehead), 1442–46. In both cases there is evidence that the cause
of death resulted from a combination of factors that included the
decedent’s health issues. 304 So. 3d at 696; see Tr. 846, 860–61, 1084,

1261–62.
In sum: Just as in Brown, here “there was no evidence of severe
trauma or trauma in multiple locations that could constitute gross
negligence,” the only injuries to the victim were visibly slight, and there
was no “extensive struggle” involving “multiple blows to the victim[ ]
resulting in severe blunt-force trauma” that could sustain a culpable-
negligence finding. 304 So. 3d at 696. Fox could not “reasonably have
foreseen” that Robinson’s death was “likely to happen” from an everyday
effort to subdue a resisting, non-compliant suspect using traditional non-
lethal means. Id. That means that Fox could not even be liable in a “civil
case[ ].” Id. So the facts do not allow the conclusion that he committed
culpable-negligence manslaughter. Id. Under Brown, “the[ ] facts” in
Fox’s case are “insufficient to demonstrate negligence so gross as to be
tantamount to a wanton disregard of, or utter indifference to, the safety
of human life.” Id. at 697 (internal quotation marks omitted). Fox’s

17
culpable-negligence-manslaughter conviction should be reversed and
judgment should be rendered in his favor.

3. There is another, independent sufficiency-of-the-evidence ground

for reversing Fox’s conviction and rendering judgment in his favor.
Upholding Fox’s conviction requires crediting testimony that Fox
“thr[e]w” Robinson to the ground or “body slammed” him, Tr. 377; 455,
and that Robinson’s head forcefully hit the ground as a result, Tr. 388,
446. That testimony was the only possible basis for attributing to Fox an

action so cavalier and wanton that it rose to the level of culpable

negligence: an officer who slams someone’s head into the ground, the
thinking goes, shows utter disregard for that person’s life. The rest of the
trial record speaks to a struggle between officers and Robinson—the sort
of common law-enforcement engagement that cannot support a culpable-
negligence finding. So that head-cracking-body-slam (or head-cracking-
throw-to-the-ground) testimony was essential to the conviction.
But that testimony has no sound basis. The record is clear that the
wound to Robinson’s head was superficial—a small abrasion no bigger
than the size of a thumbnail. Tr. 640. If Robinson’s head were forcibly
slammed into the ground, he would not have had that sort of wound. The
wound would have been far more substantial. Any rational lay juror
would know that: it is a matter of basic life experience that any adult
juror possesses. So the record evidence compels the conclusion that the
head-slamming never occurred—and that the witnesses who claimed

18
otherwise cannot be credited. Because no rational juror could have
credited their testimony—which was necessary to sustain Fox’s

conviction—that testimony is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain

the conviction. (The State emphasizes that even if this testimony is fully
credited, the evidence is still insufficient to sustain Fox’s conviction for
reasons laid out already. Supra Parts 1 and 2.)
4. On appeal, Officer Fox has challenged several jury instructions.
Fox Br. 28–50. The deferential standard of review that applies to jury-

instruction challenges is hard to overcome. Ealey v. State, 158 So. 3d 283,

289 (Miss. 2015) (denial or grant of jury instructions is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion). But this Court need not—and should not—reach
those challenges. As explained above, the conviction should be reversed
outright and judgment rendered in Fox’s favor. Fox should never have
been convicted and should not face another trial.

19
 CONCLUSION
This Court should reverse Fox’s conviction and render judgment in
his favor.
Respectfully submitted.

LYNN FITCH
Attorney General of Mississippi

CASEY B. FARMER
Special Assistant Attorney General
Mississippi Bar No. 104435
P.O. Box 220
Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0220
Telephone: (601) 359-2866
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Appellee

20
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Casey B. Farmer, certify that I have electronically filed this
document with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system, which sent
notification to all counsel of record, and mailed, via U.S. Mail, postage pre-

paid to the following:

Honorable Adrienne Wooten

Circuit Judge
P.O. Box 327
Jackson, MS 39205

Honorable Jody Owens

District Attorney
P.O. Box 22747
Jackson, MS 39225-2747

Merrida (Buddy) Coxwell, Esq.

Charles R. (Chuck) Mullins, Esq.
Courtney Denise Sanders, Esq.
P. O. Box 1337
Jackson, MS 39215-1337

Eugene Carlos Tanner III

P.O. Box 3709
Jackson, MS 39207-3700

THIS, the 10th day of July, 2023.

LYNN FITCH
Attorney General of Mississippi
/s/ Casey B. Farmer
CASEY B. FARMER
Special Assistant Attorney General
Counsel for Appellee

21