Weathersby rule in Mississippi

2025In his first issue on appeal, Swims argues that the trial court erred by refusing to give his proposed “Weathersby instruction.” In 1933, the Mississippi Supreme Court held 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, 165 Miss. at 209 , 147 So. at 482 .

2025In his first issue on appeal, Swims argues that the trial court erred by refusing to give his proposed “Weathersby instruction.” In 1933, the Mississippi Supreme Court held 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, 165 Miss. at 209 , 147 So. at 482 .

2025The Mississippi Supreme Court has held it is “clear” that “[t]he Weathersby rule . . . is not a jury instruction, but a guide for the circuit judge in determining whether a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict.” Blanks v. State, 547 So. 2d 29, 34 (Miss. 1989) (emphasis added).

2025The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s argument was without merit because “the Weathersby rule is not a jury instruction.” Id. at 349 (¶50) (ellipsis and brackets omitted) (quoting Blanks, 547 So. 2d at 34 ); accord, e.g., Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 175 (Miss. 1994) (“[T]he Weathersby Rule is not the proper subject of an instruction to the jury.” (quoting Windham v. State, 602 So. 2d 798 , 800 n.3 (Miss. 1992), and Griffin v. State, 495 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Miss. 1986))); Mullins v. State, 493 So. 2d 971, 975 (Miss. 1986) (same); Berry v. State, 455 So. 2d 774, 776 (Miss. 1984) (same);

2025The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s argument was without merit because “the Weathersby rule is not a jury instruction.” Id. at 349 (¶50) (ellipsis and brackets omitted) (quoting Blanks, 547 So. 2d at 34 ); accord, e.g., Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 175 (Miss. 1994) (“[T]he Weathersby Rule is not the proper subject of an instruction to the jury.” (quoting Windham v. State, 602 So. 2d 798 , 800 n.3 (Miss. 1992), and Griffin v. State, 495 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Miss. 1986))); Mullins v. State, 493 So. 2d 971, 975 (Miss. 1986) (same); Berry v. State, 455 So. 2d 774, 776 (Miss. 1984) (same);

2025The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s argument was without merit because “the Weathersby rule is not a jury instruction.” Id. at 349 (¶50) (ellipsis and brackets omitted) (quoting Blanks, 547 So. 2d at 34 ); accord, e.g., Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 175 (Miss. 1994) (“[T]he Weathersby Rule is not the proper subject of an instruction to the jury.” (quoting Windham v. State, 602 So. 2d 798 , 800 n.3 (Miss. 1992), and Griffin v. State, 495 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Miss. 1986))); Mullins v. State, 493 So. 2d 971, 975 (Miss. 1986) (same); Berry v. State, 455 So. 2d 774, 776 (Miss. 1984) (same);

2025“Where the Weathersby rule applies and the defendant’s version affords an absolute legal defense, the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.” Johnson v. State, 987 So. 2d 420, 424 (¶10) (Miss. 2008).

2025“Where the Weathersby rule applies and the defendant’s version affords an absolute legal defense, the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.” Johnson v. State, 987 So. 2d 420, 424 (¶10) (Miss. 2008).

2025The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s argument was without merit because “the Weathersby rule is not a jury instruction.” Id. at 349 (¶50) (ellipsis and brackets omitted) (quoting Blanks, 547 So. 2d at 34 ); accord, e.g., Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 175 (Miss. 1994) (“[T]he Weathersby Rule is not the proper subject of an instruction to the jury.” (quoting Windham v. State, 602 So. 2d 798 , 800 n.3 (Miss. 1992), and Griffin v. State, 495 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Miss. 1986))); Mullins v. State, 493 So. 2d 971, 975 (Miss. 1986) (same); Berry v. State, 455 So. 2d 774, 776 (Miss. 1984) (same);

2025The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s argument was without merit because “the Weathersby rule is not a jury instruction.” Id. at 349 (¶50) (ellipsis and brackets omitted) (quoting Blanks, 547 So. 2d at 34 ); accord, e.g., Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 175 (Miss. 1994) (“[T]he Weathersby Rule is not the proper subject of an instruction to the jury.” (quoting Windham v. State, 602 So. 2d 798 , 800 n.3 (Miss. 1992), and Griffin v. State, 495 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Miss. 1986))); Mullins v. State, 493 So. 2d 971, 975 (Miss. 1986) (same); Berry v. State, 455 So. 2d 774, 776 (Miss. 1984) (same);

2008The applicability of the Weathersby rule is a determination for the court, not the jury, see Green, 631 So.2d at 175 (citing Null v. State, 311 So.2d 654, 658 (Miss.1975)), in that " Weathersby ... is nothing more than a particularized version of our general standards according to which courts must decide whether in a criminal prosecution the accused is entitled to a judgment of acquittal as a matter of law." Jackson v. State, 551 So.2d 132, 136 (Miss.1989) (citations omitted). ¶ 11.

2008The applicability of the Weathersby rule is a determination for the court, not the jury, see Green, 631 So.2d at 175 (citing Null v. State, 311 So.2d 654, 658 (Miss.1975)), in that " Weathersby ... is nothing more than a particularized version of our general standards according to which courts must decide whether in a criminal prosecution the accused is entitled to a judgment of acquittal as a matter of law." Jackson v. State, 551 So.2d 132, 136 (Miss.1989) (citations omitted). ¶ 11.

2025The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s argument was without merit because “the Weathersby rule is not a jury instruction.” Id. at 349 (¶50) (ellipsis and brackets omitted) (quoting Blanks, 547 So. 2d at 34 ); accord, e.g., Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 175 (Miss. 1994) (“[T]he Weathersby Rule is not the proper subject of an instruction to the jury.” (quoting Windham v. State, 602 So. 2d 798 , 800 n.3 (Miss. 1992), and Griffin v. State, 495 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Miss. 1986))); Mullins v. State, 493 So. 2d 971, 975 (Miss. 1986) (same); Berry v. State, 455 So. 2d 774, 776 (Miss. 1984) (same);

2025The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s argument was without merit because “the Weathersby rule is not a jury instruction.” Id. at 349 (¶50) (ellipsis and brackets omitted) (quoting Blanks, 547 So. 2d at 34 ); accord, e.g., Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 175 (Miss. 1994) (“[T]he Weathersby Rule is not the proper subject of an instruction to the jury.” (quoting Windham v. State, 602 So. 2d 798 , 800 n.3 (Miss. 1992), and Griffin v. State, 495 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Miss. 1986))); Mullins v. State, 493 So. 2d 971, 975 (Miss. 1986) (same); Berry v. State, 455 So. 2d 774, 776 (Miss. 1984) (same);

2026See Jones v. State, 154 So. 3d 872, 877 (Miss. 2014) (“Because [defendant] did not raise the Weathersby rule at trial, the issue is procedurally barred on appeal.” (citing Page v. State, 64 So. 3d 482, 489 (Miss. 2011))). ¶49.

2026See Jones v. State, 154 So. 3d 872, 877 (Miss. 2014) (“Because [defendant] did not raise the Weathersby rule at trial, the issue is procedurally barred on appeal.” (citing Page v. State, 64 So. 3d 482, 489 (Miss. 2011))). ¶49.

2025The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s argument was without merit because “the Weathersby rule is not a jury instruction.” Id. at 349 (¶50) (ellipsis and brackets omitted) (quoting Blanks, 547 So. 2d at 34 ); accord, e.g., Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 175 (Miss. 1994) (“[T]he Weathersby Rule is not the proper subject of an instruction to the jury.” (quoting Windham v. State, 602 So. 2d 798 , 800 n.3 (Miss. 1992), and Griffin v. State, 495 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Miss. 1986))); Mullins v. State, 493 So. 2d 971, 975 (Miss. 1986) (same); Berry v. State, 455 So. 2d 774, 776 (Miss. 1984) (same);

2025The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s argument was without merit because “the Weathersby rule is not a jury instruction.” Id. at 349 (¶50) (ellipsis and brackets omitted) (quoting Blanks, 547 So. 2d at 34 ); accord, e.g., Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 175 (Miss. 1994) (“[T]he Weathersby Rule is not the proper subject of an instruction to the jury.” (quoting Windham v. State, 602 So. 2d 798 , 800 n.3 (Miss. 1992), and Griffin v. State, 495 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Miss. 1986))); Mullins v. State, 493 So. 2d 971, 975 (Miss. 1986) (same); Berry v. State, 455 So. 2d 774, 776 (Miss. 1984) (same);

2006In Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 209 , 147 So. 481, 482 (1933), the Mississippi Supreme Court stated 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." This holding has since become known as the Weathersby rule. "[A] Weathersby challenge is, essentially, a test of the sufficiency of the evidence." Davis v. State, 891 S

2006In Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 209 , 147 So. 481, 482 (1933), the Mississippi Supreme Court stated 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." This holding has since become known as the Weathersby rule. "[A] Weathersby challenge is, essentially, a test of the sufficiency of the evidence." Davis v. State, 891 S

2026See Jones v. State, 154 So. 3d 872, 877 (Miss. 2014) (“Because [defendant] did not raise the Weathersby rule at trial, the issue is procedurally barred on appeal.” (citing Page v. State, 64 So. 3d 482, 489 (Miss. 2011))). ¶49.

2026See Jones v. State, 154 So. 3d 872, 877 (Miss. 2014) (“Because [defendant] did not raise the Weathersby rule at trial, the issue is procedurally barred on appeal.” (citing Page v. State, 64 So. 3d 482, 489 (Miss. 2011))). ¶49.

2025Id. “[I]t 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)).

2025Id. “[I]t 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)).

2022Further, when the Weathersby rule is applicable and the “defendant’s version affords an absolute legal defense, the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.” Id. (quoting Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 174 (Miss. 1994)). ¶18.

2022Further, when the Weathersby rule is applicable and the “defendant’s version affords an absolute legal defense, the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.” Id. (quoting Green v. State, 631 So. 2d 167, 174 (Miss. 1994)). ¶18.

2021But the Weathersby rule applies only in a “narrow context.” Booker v. State, 64 So. 3d 965, 974 (¶29) (Miss. 2011); see also Parvin, 113 So. 3d at 1252 (¶34) (“There are . . . 13 limitations upon the familiar Weathersby rule.”).

2021But the Weathersby rule applies only in a “narrow context.” Booker v. State, 64 So. 3d 965, 974 (¶29) (Miss. 2011); see also Parvin, 113 So. 3d at 1252 (¶34) (“There are . . . 13 limitations upon the familiar Weathersby rule.”).

2025Id. “[I]t 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)).

2025Id. “[I]t 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)).

2022The Weathersby rule is “alive and well and living in the courtrooms of this [S]tate.” Johnson v. State, 987 So. 2d 420, 424 (¶10) (Miss. 2008) (quoting Heidel v. State, 587 So. 2d 835 , 839 7 Ford’s attorney did not file any post-trial motions, including motions for a new trial or JNOV. 10 (Miss. 1991)).

2022The Weathersby rule is “alive and well and living in the courtrooms of this [S]tate.” Johnson v. State, 987 So. 2d 420, 424 (¶10) (Miss. 2008) (quoting Heidel v. State, 587 So. 2d 835 , 839 7 Ford’s attorney did not file any post-trial motions, including motions for a new trial or JNOV. 10 (Miss. 1991)).

2009Cf. Cummings v. State, 271 So.2d 407, 409 (Miss.1972) (Weathersby rule applicable; Cummings discharged); Childs v. State, 240 So.2d 611, 615 (Miss.1970) (Weathersby rule applicable; Childs discharged); Lomax v. State, 205 Miss. 635, 642 , 39 So.2d 267, 269 (1949) (Weathersby rule applicable; Lomax discharged); Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426, 435 , 32 So.2d 251, 253 (1947) (Weathersby rule applicable; Westbrook discharged). 4 .

2008See also Pritchett v. State, 560 So.2d 1017, 1020 (Miss.1990) (the last time this Court applied the rule to require the discharge of a defendant, wherein we held "the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for [Pritchett]."); Dew, 309 *425 So.2d at 859 ("[t]he Weathersby rule applies, in our opinion, requiring the cause to be reversed and the defendant discharged."); Cummings v. State, 271 So.2d 407, 409 (Miss.1972) ( Weathersby rule applicable; Cummings discharged); Childs v. State, 240 So.2d 611, 615 (Miss.1970) ( Weathersby rule applicable; Childs discharged); Lomax v. State, 205

2009Cf. Cummings v. State, 271 So.2d 407, 409 (Miss.1972) (Weathersby rule applicable; Cummings discharged); Childs v. State, 240 So.2d 611, 615 (Miss.1970) (Weathersby rule applicable; Childs discharged); Lomax v. State, 205 Miss. 635, 642 , 39 So.2d 267, 269 (1949) (Weathersby rule applicable; Lomax discharged); Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426, 435 , 32 So.2d 251, 253 (1947) (Weathersby rule applicable; Westbrook discharged). 4 .

2008See also Pritchett v. State, 560 So.2d 1017, 1020 (Miss.1990) (the last time this Court applied the rule to require the discharge of a defendant, wherein we held "the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for [Pritchett]."); Dew, 309 *425 So.2d at 859 ("[t]he Weathersby rule applies, in our opinion, requiring the cause to be reversed and the defendant discharged."); Cummings v. State, 271 So.2d 407, 409 (Miss.1972) ( Weathersby rule applicable; Cummings discharged); Childs v. State, 240 So.2d 611, 615 (Miss.1970) ( Weathersby rule applicable; Childs discharged); Lomax v. State, 205

2023“If the Weathersby rule applies and the defendant’s 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)).

2023“If the Weathersby rule applies and the defendant’s 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)).

2009Cf. Cummings v. State, 271 So.2d 407, 409 (Miss.1972) (Weathersby rule applicable; Cummings discharged); Childs v. State, 240 So.2d 611, 615 (Miss.1970) (Weathersby rule applicable; Childs discharged); Lomax v. State, 205 Miss. 635, 642 , 39 So.2d 267, 269 (1949) (Weathersby rule applicable; Lomax discharged); Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426, 435 , 32 So.2d 251, 253 (1947) (Weathersby rule applicable; Westbrook discharged). 4 .

2009Cf. Cummings v. State, 271 So.2d 407, 409 (Miss.1972) (Weathersby rule applicable; Cummings discharged); Childs v. State, 240 So.2d 611, 615 (Miss.1970) (Weathersby rule applicable; Childs discharged); Lomax v. State, 205 Miss. 635, 642 , 39 So.2d 267, 269 (1949) (Weathersby rule applicable; Lomax discharged); Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426, 435 , 32 So.2d 251, 253 (1947) (Weathersby rule applicable; Westbrook discharged). 4 .

2009Cf. Cummings v. State, 271 So.2d 407, 409 (Miss.1972) (Weathersby rule applicable; Cummings discharged); Childs v. State, 240 So.2d 611, 615 (Miss.1970) (Weathersby rule applicable; Childs discharged); Lomax v. State, 205 Miss. 635, 642 , 39 So.2d 267, 269 (1949) (Weathersby rule applicable; Lomax discharged); Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426, 435 , 32 So.2d 251, 253 (1947) (Weathersby rule applicable; Westbrook discharged). 4 .

2009Cf. Cummings v. State, 271 So.2d 407, 409 (Miss.1972) (Weathersby rule applicable; Cummings discharged); Childs v. State, 240 So.2d 611, 615 (Miss.1970) (Weathersby rule applicable; Childs discharged); Lomax v. State, 205 Miss. 635, 642 , 39 So.2d 267, 269 (1949) (Weathersby rule applicable; Lomax discharged); Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426, 435 , 32 So.2d 251, 253 (1947) (Weathersby rule applicable; Westbrook discharged). 4 .

1996The Weathersby rule does not to apply to situations where the defendant's version has been contradicted, Ruffin v. State, 481 So.2d 312, 316 (Miss. 1985), or when the defendants were not the only eyewitnesses.

1996The Weathersby rule does not to apply to situations where the defendant's version has been contradicted, Ruffin v. State, 481 So.2d 312, 316 (Miss. 1985), or when the defendants were not the only eyewitnesses.

2015Blanks, 547 So.2d at 33-34 (holding “The Weathersby rule, as Harveston [v. State, 493 So.2d 365 (Miss.1986) ] makes clear, is not a jury instruction, but a guide for the judge in determining whether a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict.”) Again, the rule is not applicable where the defendant’s version of the story is unreasonable or contradicted by physical facts.

2015Blanks, 547 So.2d at 33-34 (holding “The Weathersby rule, as Harveston [v. State, 493 So.2d 365 (Miss.1986) ] makes clear, is not a jury instruction, but a guide for the judge in determining whether a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict.”) Again, the rule is not applicable where the defendant’s version of the story is unreasonable or contradicted by physical facts.

2008"Taking the transcript of the evidence by the four corners," Houston, 78 So. at 183 , the Weathersby rule is clearly applicable, as the necessary elements for either a murder or manslaughter conviction were lacking.

2008"Taking the transcript of the evidence by the four corners," Houston, 78 So. at 183 , the Weathersby rule is clearly applicable, as the necessary elements for either a murder or manslaughter conviction were lacking.

2008Under Weathersby, "the reasonable, uncontradicted story of the defendant or his witnesses must be accepted as true." Id. at 174 (citing Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 808 (Miss.1987)). ¶ 35.

2008Under Weathersby, "the reasonable, uncontradicted story of the defendant or his witnesses must be accepted as true." Id. at 174 (citing Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 808 (Miss.1987)). ¶ 35.

2020At 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.

2020At 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.

2015Buchanan, 567 So.2d at 197 .

2015Buchanan, 567 So.2d at 197 .

2006In Carter v. State , 221 Miss. 111 , 72 So.2d 231 , 232 (1954), this Court held that even though the State introduced statements made by Carter in its case, the Weathersby rule had no application because Carter neither testified nor offered any witnesses at trial.

2006In Carter v. State , 221 Miss. 111 , 72 So.2d 231 , 232 (1954), this Court held that even though the State introduced statements made by Carter in its case, the Weathersby rule had no application because Carter neither testified nor offered any witnesses at trial.