Case Reveals That Mississippi Courts (Incorrectly) Deem the Victim’s Character for Violence an Essential Element of a Self-Defense Claim

Similar to its federal counterpart, Mississippi Rule of Evidence 405(b) provides that

When a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.

So, is the victim’s character for violence an essential element of a defendant’s claim of self-defense? Let’s look at the recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of Mississippi in Quinn v. State, 2025 WL 1636966 (Miss. App. 2025).

In Quinn, 

[Jamyrian] Quinn and Courtney Todd were involved in an altercation in the parking lot of the Pure Gas Station in Gautier, Mississippi. During the altercation, Todd suffered a fatal gunshot wound. Quinn was ultimately indicted for the first-degree murder of Todd.

Testimony presented at Quinn’s trial reflects that on the evening of July 15, 2019, Quinn rode to the Pure Gas Station with several friends, including Nicholas Curtis. Curtis testified that the friends went to the gas station to “hang out.” Todd and his friend Frank Wells were also at the gas station. Wells testified that he and Todd drove to the gas station to purchase marijuana.

On the day of the shooting, the Pure Gas Station had fourteen surveillance cameras in use. Officers from the Gautier Police Department collected the surveillance footage from the cameras as part of the investigation into Todd’s death. The surveillance footage of the shooting and the events leading up to the shooting was played for the jury.

The footage shows Todd and Curtis standing outside the gas station, interacting and talking. Quinn was standing close to the two men, observing their interaction. At one point, Todd briefly placed his hands on the pockets of Curtis’s shorts, and then Todd pulled away. Todd and Curtis did not appear angry or hostile at any point. The two men began casually walking off together, with Todd behind Curtis. As they walked, Quinn quickly approached Todd and punched him. Todd appeared stunned, and he jumped away from Quinn. Quinn then displayed a gun, and Todd immediately retreated away from Quinn. Quinn followed Todd as he retreated, pointing the gun at the back of Todd’s head. The footage shows Quinn speaking to Todd, and Todd facing Quinn and raising his arms up in a submissive position. During this exchange, Quinn fired two shots. Todd continued to retreat away from Quinn. As Todd retreated, Quinn followed him and continued to point the gun at him. Todd eventually crouched down on his knees and raised his hands in the air. Once Todd was on his knees, Quinn stood over Todd and punched him, and then Quinn shot Todd in the neck. Quinn then fled from the scene. Todd ultimately died as a result of the gunshot to his neck. 

After Quinn was convicted, he appealed, claiming “that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence about Todd’s violent character.” Specifically, Quinn claimed that “testimony regarding Todd’s specific conduct was admissible under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 405(b).”

In response, the Court of Appeals of Mississippi ruled as follows:

Rule 405(b) provides that instances of a person’s specific conduct are admissible in cases where character or the trait of character is “an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense….”…The supreme court has further clarified that specific past acts are admissible on cross or direct examination “where a defendant alleges self-defense,” and “the character trait of violence was an essential element of the defense under 405(b).”…

In the case before us, the trial court found that the specific act by Todd did not involve a gun or even threats of physical harm, and therefore Carson’s testimony was not relevant to show Todd’s character trait for violence. We recognize that “[a] trial judge enjoys a great deal of discretion as to the relevancy and admissibility of evidence.”…Keeping this standard in mind, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Carson’s testimony.

I agree with the overall conclusion that this character evidence was inadmissible, but I disagree with the Supreme Court of Mississippi that character evidence can be an essential element of a self-defense claim. Rule 405(b) is typically only triggered when character is truly essential, i.e., when a party can’t win its claim without character evidence. These types of cases are negligent hiring/supervision, entrapment, defamation, and insanity.

For example, imagine that a plaintiff struck by a city bus sues the city for negligent hiring of a driver with a string of DUIs. The only way for the plaintiff to prove her claim is by presenting evidence of the driver’s DUIs to show why the city was negligent in hiring her.

On the other hand, while character evidence is certainly helpful in proving a self-defense claim, it’s not essential. A generally violent victim could have been peaceful in the incident leading to her death, just as a generally peaceful person could have been violent in the incident leading to her death. And a defendant can always testify and prove her self-defense claim without needing evidence of the victim’s violent character.

That’s not to say that Mississippi is alone in its interpretation, but it is in the minority. As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts noted in Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 824 N.E.2d 1 (Mass. 2005),

Rules 404 and 405 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and similar State rules permit the defendant to introduce reputation and opinion evidence, but not specific acts of violence, to prove the victim’s violent character….Despite this dominant interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, some State courts have held that the victim’s character is an “essential element” of a defendant’s self-defense claim, allowing the use of specific acts evidence under the State equivalent of Fed. R. Evid. 405(b).

-CM