## Facts

- Derrick Nelson attended a family graduation party where an altercation developed between him and Willie Hood, Jr., his sister’s boyfriend.
- Evidence at trial indicated Hood was intoxicated, acted erratically, and became increasingly agitated during a dispute involving car keys and an attempt to drive.
- Hood damaged property around his vehicle and broke a bottle, with glass striking Nelson.
- Nelson called a friend for a ride, retrieved a gun from the friend’s car, and fired two shots into the air as warning shots.
- Nelson and Hood then physically struggled near Hood’s car; during the struggle the gun discharged, and Hood was fatally shot in the head.
- Nelson maintained the shooting was accidental and that he did not intend to shoot Hood.
- Two eyewitnesses initially gave statements implying an intentional shooting but later recanted or claimed lack of memory at trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument improperly commented on Nelson’s failure to testify or otherwise denied him a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Mississippi granted certiorari, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment of conviction and life sentence.
- The court held the record provided no evidentiary basis for an imperfect self-defense instruction.
- The court held the prosecutor’s challenged remarks did not amount to an improper comment on Nelson’s right to remain silent and did not constitute reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to instructions presenting his theory of the case only when there is evidence in the record supporting that theory.
- Imperfect self-defense (mitigating murder to manslaughter) requires evidence that the defendant actually, though unreasonably, believed deadly force was necessary; the theory presupposes an intentional use of deadly force under a mistaken belief of necessity.
- Closing argument may not directly or indirectly comment on a defendant’s decision not to testify, but the prosecutor may argue the absence of corroborating evidence or the lack of testimony from other witnesses when not framed as a comment on the defendant’s silence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Nelson’s murder conviction because the proof supported an accidental-discharge theory rather than an intentional killing under an unreasonable belief in the need for deadly force, and because the prosecutor’s closing remarks were treated as permissible argument about missing corroboration rather than an impermissible comment on Nelson’s silence.


Nelson v. State, 284 So. 3d 711 (Miss. 2019)