Title: Williams v. State

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

589 So. 2d 1278 (1991) Horace WILLIAMS v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 90-KA-0538. Supreme Court of Mississippi. November 20, 1991. Roger Mathes, Greenwood, for appellant. Mike C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Maris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before HAWKINS, P.J., and PITTMAN and McRAE, JJ. PITTMAN, Justice, for the Court: Horace Williams was riding in an automobile on the night of March 10, 1989, when the vehicle was stopped by law enforcement officers. Williams was found to be in possession of 2,268.9 grams of marijuana and a large sum of money. Indicted, tried, and convicted in the Circuit Court of Leflore County of possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, he was sentenced to serve twenty-five (25) years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Williams appeals contending the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to grant a requested jury instruction. Finding no error in the denial of the instruction, we affirm. The refused instruction (D-2) suggested in an article written by Vincent T. Bugliosi, attorney of the California Bar entitled "Not Guilty and Innocent The *1279 Problem Children of Reasonable Doubt" states: The Bugliosi article suggests that jurors be given more definitive instructions on the difference between the effect of a verdict of "not guilty" and "guilty." The proposed instruction (D-2) would, in effect, add a third tier to our present two-verdict system (guilty or not guilty) which comports with Scotland's three-verdict system (guilty, not guilty, not proven). Williams overlooks the effect of the burden of proof instructions and a presumption of innocence instruction granted by the trial court which adequately answer the arguments set forth in Attorney Bugliosi's article. The court instructions to the jury stated: Additionally, Williams requested and the court granted him instruction D-4 which stated: It is not necessary for our decision to express approval or disapproval of instruction D-4 requested and granted to Williams. The jury was told in bold and simple terms that Williams was not required to prove his innocence and that the burden was on the State to prove him guilty beyond *1280 a reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the indictment before they could convict. The trial court is not required to instruct the jury over and over on a principle of law. Laney v. State, 486 So. 2d 1242, 1246 (Miss. 1986). The instructions, when read together, fully and fairly instructed the jury on the presumption of Williams' innocence and the State's burden of proof. Williams' argument is premised on the alleged need to define reasonable doubt, yet we have held that reasonable doubt defines itself and needs no definition by the court. Barnes v. State, 532 So. 2d 1231, 1235 (Miss. 1988). Moreover, the proffered instruction was confusing and could have misled the jury. Its refusal was not error. Sudduth v. State, 562 So. 2d 67, 72 (Miss. 1990). CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA WITH INTENT TO SELL OR DELIVER, AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.