I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - CA- 0 2 5 3 2 - S CT CANDICE YOUNG, PER S ONAL REP RES EN T AT I VE OF T HE WRONGF UL D EA TH BEN EF ICIAR I ES O F C

H ER I E S. HANCO CK, DECEAS ED
v. DONA L D C

. GUI L D, M . D.
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 24/ 2004 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JA N N IE M . L E W IS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: YAZOO COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: RONALD M
. KI RK ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: DEN I SE C. W ESLE Y W H IT M A N B . JO H N S O N , III NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH DI S P OS I T I ON: ON DI RE CT AP P E AL : RE VE RS E D AND REM A N D ED . O N CRO SS
- APPEAL: AFFI RM ED I N PA RT A ND REV ER SED A N D R E M A N D E D I N PA R T
- 10/ 30/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n t hi s w r ongf

ul death sui ci de cas e, t he C our tm us tconsi derseve r al evi dent i ary i s s ues and determ i ne w hetherthe tr i al cou rtproperl y instruct ed the j ury. T he C ou rtm ustal so
c o n sid e r w h e th e r th e Irre sis tib le I m p u lse D o c trin e b a rs re c o v e ry w h e n th e w ro n g fu l d e a th b en eficiari es h av e all eg ed m ed ical m alpra cti ce . F ind ing error, w e re v erse an d rem an d for a
n e w trial.

### 2 FACTS ¶2. J i m H err i ng, Cher i e S. H ancoc k’ s di vor ce att orney, r ef err ed hi s cl i entt o D onal d G ui l d, M . D ., a p sy ch iatri st, for a m en tal ev alua ti o n an d m ed ical trea tm en t. H erring w an ted D r. G ui l d’ s e xpertopi ni on f ora di vor ce pr ocee di ng thati nvol ved H ancoc k and h er hus band, G e o rg e T h o m a s H a n c o c k . H a n c o c k ’s m e n ta l s ta te w a s a t is s u e in th e p ro c e e d in g . ¶3. D r . G ui l d f

i r s tmetw i th H ancoc k on A ugus t7, 1999. H ancoc k i nf or m ed D r . G ui l d that dur i ng the 199 0s h er r el at i ons hi p w i th herhus band and c hi l dr en had de t er i or at ed; s he had
su ffe re d a m isc a rria g e ; an d sh e p re v io u sly h a d sh o t h e rse lf in th e c h e st, a ttem p tin g to c o m m it
su icid e . H a n c o c k v isited D r. G u ild ’s o ffic e a g a in o n A u g u s t 1 6 , 1 9 9 9 . D r. G u ild b e g a n to treatH anco ck o n an i np at i ent basi s atS t . D om i nic H ospit al in Jackson , M i ssi ssi pp i , on A ug ust 20, 1999. ¶4. O n Sept ember15, 1999, D r . G ui l d t es t i f i ed atH ancoc k’ s di vor ce he ar i ng. W hen as ked the ques t i on, “[ D ] o yo u have an opi ni on as t o w hathercondi t i on w oul d be i f s he i s not al l ow ed t o m ove bac k i nt o [ her ] hous e and ha ve f r ee r ei gn?”, D r . G ui l d r es ponded: I re a lly ju st d o n ’t w a n t t o thin k ab o u t th a t. I do n ’t th in k itw ill b e g o o d a t all. I ho p e sh e w o u ld m ak e it , b u t w e h av e to find an o ther p lace for h er to li v e. It w on’ tbe perm anen t . Itw i l l be a t empora ry pl ace . A nd f oranybody el s e, f

or m o st o th e r p e o p le, th e y c o u ld lo o k a h e a d a n d se e th e fa c t th a t th e y ’re g o in g to c ome ou ta l l r i gh t . ButI ’ m af r a i d s he c a n’ td o tha t . W i th he rd e pr e s s i on and everythi ng, i t ’ s goi ng t o be cl ouded, she’ s goi ng t o be hopel es s . I ’ m af r ai d s he w i l l t ake he rl i f

e. ¶5. D r . G ui l d w as al s o as ked how l ong he t houghtH ancoc k w oul d need t o be hos pi t al i zed. D r . G ui l d r es ponded, “I thi nk I coul d puth er back i nt o the hous e i n tw o days
. I w oul d f eel comfort abl e doi ng t hat
. If she goes somepl ace el s e I j us tw oul dn’ tes t i m at e. ” Fur ther , w hen

### 3

as ked how l i f

e thr eat eni ng i tw oul d be, i n D r . G ui l d’ s opi ni on, f orH ancoc k nott o be al l ow ed t o go back t o herhous e, D r . G ui l d r es ponded: I can’ tp ut a fi gu re on i t . I can’ tputanythi ng [ s i c] , butI coul dn’ tr ecomm end i t . I ’ m her e today beca us e I ’ m very f ear f ul ther e i s a good cha nce thati f s he d o esn ’th av e tha t si tuation , sh e w o n ’tb e h ere an d the n ee d for a d ivo rce w o n ’t b e b e fo re th e c o u rt. D r . G ui l d di s char ged H ancoc k f r om the hos pi t al on Fr i day, Sept ember17, 1999. ¶ 6
. D r. G u ild fo rm u late d a d isc h a rg e p lan fo r H a n c o c k , w h ich p ro v id e d th a t sh e liv e w ith h e r m o ther an d st ep fathe r. A cc o rdin g t o th e p lan, H an co ck w as to b e “w ith som eo n e a t all ti m es if po ssible .
. . . [and ] [i ] f th ere w as a n y thing u n u su al .
. . [her m o ther a n d step -father]
w er e t o l et[ D r . G ui l d] know
. ” H ancoc k’ s pa r ent s w er e s uppos ed t o m ake s ur e thats he t ook h e r m e d ica tio n s a n d m e t w ith D r. G u ild o n a n o u tp a tien t b a sis
. D r. G u ild d id n o t sp e a k w ith H ancoc k’ s par ent s re gar di ng t he di s char ge pl an, buthe del egat ed thatt as k t o a s oci al w or ker and H err i ng . H anco ck com m i t t ed sui ci de on S eptem ber 20, 1999 , three day s af t er herrel ease fro m S t. D o m in ic H o sp ital. ¶7. A s p art o f it s inv esti g ati o n o f H an co ck ’s su ici d e, t he Y azoo C o u n ty S h eriff’s D ep artm en t disco v ere d v ariou s su ici d e n o tes at th e su icid e s ce n e a n d H an co ck ’s m o ther’s hous e. T hr oughoutt he not es , H ancoc k bl amed herhusband f orheri m pendi ng s ui ci de, and
s he as s i gned herpos s es s i ons t o var i ous fa m i l y m ember s . H ancoc k al s o l ef ta not e t el l i ng her
c h i l d r e n h o w mu c h s h e l o v e d th e m.

### 4 P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶8. O n Sept ember 14, 2001, C andi ce Y oung, i ndi vi dual l y and as per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of the w r ongf

ul death benef

i ci ar i es of H ancoc k, fi l ed a com pl ai ntagai ns tD r . G ui l d. Y oung al l eged thatH ancoc k w as und er the ca r e and tr eatm entof D r . G ui l d f

r om A ugus t6, 1999, unt i l herdeath on Sept ember20, 1999. Y oung spec i f i cal l y al l eged thatD r . G ui l d di r ect l y and p rox im ately c au sed H an co ck ’s de ath b y h is ne g li g en ce in: ( 1 ) fail ing to m ee t his du ty o f ca re i n tr eat i ng H ancoc k; ( 2) f ai l i ng t o adequa t el y as s es s and s cr een H ancoc k a s a s ui ci de r i s k pr i or t o r el eas i ng herf

r om the hos pi t al ; and ( 3) f ai l i ng to t ake re as onabl e s t eps t o el i m i nat e or
m i t i gat e s i tuat i onal f

act or s of w hi ch he w as aw ar e thatcons t i tut ed a da ngert o H ancoc k and enhanc ed herabi l i ty t o t ake he row n l i f e. ¶9. D r . G ui l d f

i l ed an A ns w er on O ct ob er 18, 2001. H e admi t t ed that he had pr ovi ded tr eatm entt o H ancoc k pr i ort o h erdeath and thatH ancoc k had t aken he rl i f e by f i r earm on Sept ember20, 1999. D r . G ui l d af f i r m at i vel y pl eade d S ect i on 85-5- 7 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A n n o ta te d a n d th e d o c tr in e o f i lle g a lity
. ¶10. D ur i ng di s covery, D r . G ui l d’ s counsel repeatedl y at t em pt ed t o depos e H err i ng and
ev en tually fi led a M o ti o n to C o m p el the d ep o sit ion
. In P lai n ti ff’ s R esp o n se to D efe n d an t’ s M ot i on t o C om pel , Y oung as s ert ed the att orney- cl i entpr i vi l e ge a ndthe w ork pr oductdoctr i ne on behal f of the dec eas ed H ancoc k. T her eaf t er , the t r i al courtdeni ed the M ot i on t o C om pel H err i ng’ s depos i t i on by O r derf i l ed A pr i l 5, 2004. T he O r derdi d notcont ai n any gr ounds f or the deni al , and the tr ans cr i ptof the hea r i ng coul d notbe l ocat ed.

### 5

¶11
. D r. G uil d also fi l ed a M oti on for Su m m ary Jud gm ent, co ntendi ng thatsuici de w as a
com m on l aw cri m i nal act , and theref ore, the il l egali ty d efense barr ed Y ou ng ' s cl ai m s agai nst D r. G uil d. F urther, D r. G uil d argue d thatsi nc e su ici d e i s general l y a sup ercedi ng cause pr ecl udi ng l i abi l i ty, Y oung w as r equi r ed t o s how thathercase qua l i f i ed f orthe exc ept i on
r ecogni zed i n M i s s i s s i ppi , the I r r es i s t i bl e I m pul s e D octr i ne. D r. G uil d averr ed thatY oung fa iled to s h o w th a t D r. G u ild c o m m itt e d a n in ten tio n a l to rt w h ich c a u se d a n irre sis tib le i m pul s e i n t he dec edentt o comm i tsui ci de. D r . G ui l d al s o ar gued t hatt he sui ci de not es f ound by the Y azoo Count y Sher i f f’ s D epart m entdem ons tr at ed thatH ancoc k under s t ood t he
c o n s e q u e n c e s o f s h o o tin g h e rs e lf ; th u s , h e r a c ts w e re v o litio n a l a n d n o t c o m p e n s a b le
. ¶12. Y oung r es ponded that the def ens e of s uper cedi ng caus e i s i nappl i cabl e i n cas es bas ed upon the doct or/pat i entr el at i ons hi p. Y oung ar gued the j ury s houl d det erm i ne w hethert he
s ui ci de w as for es eea bl e and j udge t he r eas onabl enes s of D r . G ui l d’ s act i ons . Y oung as s er t ed thatther e w er e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f

actas t o w hetherD r . G ui l d t ook r eas onabl e s t eps t o pr eventH ancoc k' s s ui ci de. ¶ 1 3
. T h e trial c o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w ith o u t ex p lan a tio n o n A p ril 5, 20 04
. A j ury t ri al w as cond ucted A ug ust17 -19, 20 04
. Y ou ng cal l ed si x w i tnesses, i ncl udi ng D r . G ui l d as an adve r s e w i tnes s . D r . G ui l d w as quest i oned aboutw hetherhe per f or m ed a s ui ci de r i s k as s es s m entand pr epar ed a di s char ge pl an. ¶ 1 4
. Y o u n g a lso c a lled D r. R a y m o n d F . P a tters o n to te stify as a fo re n sic p sy c h iatry e x p e rt. Pat t er s on t es t i f

i ed thatD r . G ui l d vi ol at ed the s t andar d of c ar e by f

ai l i ng t o per f

or m a pr oper
s ui ci de ri sk ass es s m ent . Pat t er s on opi ned thatD r . G ui l d di s char ged H ancoc k pr ematur el y.

### 6

P a t t e r s o n a l s o t e s t i f

i e d th a tD r . G u i l d h a d a n i n a d e q u a t e d i s c h a r g e p l a n t o a s s i s tH a n c o c k 's
s ur vi val i n the comm uni ty atthe t i m e of di s char ge. Pat t er s on t es t i f i ed t hatD r . G ui l d vi ol at ed t he s t a nd a r d of

c a r e i n i mpl e ment i ng the d i s c ha r ge p l a n w he n D r . Gui l d f a i l e d t o s peak di r ect l y w i th H ancoc k’ s m otherand s t epf atherpr i ort o herdi s char ge. ¶15. D r . G ui l d cal l ed f our w i tnes s es . D onna C ar ey Pi gg, H ancoc k’ s bes t f r i end, i dent i f

i ed handw r i t t en l ett er s s entt o herby H ancoc k. Pi gg al so t es t i f i ed aboutH ancoc k’ s i nt er act i on
w i th herf

ami l y. D r . G ui l d es s ent i al l y t es t i f i ed thathe had metthe s t andar d of car e r egar di ng h is trea tm en t of H an co ck
. W il li e B ell H o o d , the d ep u ty c lerk at th e Y az o o C o u n ty S h eriff’s D ep artm en t, p rov ided test im o n y ab o u t a fax the D ep artm en t sen t t o D r. G u il d ’s co u n se l. H ood ver i f

i ed the dat e on the cove rsheet as herhandw r i t i ng, buts he coul d noti dent i f y t he p ap ers in the f

i l e as tho se s he faxed or att estw ho pl aced t he pap ers i n the fi l e. L ast , D r. Sandr a H ol l y t es t i f

i ed as an ex perti n the f i el d of ps ychi atry thatD r . G ui l d had mett he
s t andar d of

car e i n hi s tr eatm entof H ancoc k. ¶1 6. A tt r i al , D r . Gui l d’ s c ou ns e l mad e thi s o f f e ro f p r oo f r egar di ng t he t es t i m ony of H e rrin g : [W ]e w o u ld e x p e c t h im to tes tify c o n sis ten t w ith th e - - te stify w ith re g a rd to M s . H ancoc k’ s s t at e of

m i nd r egar di ng how s he w as bei ng tr eat ed and the ef f ect ith ad o n h er, w ith reg ard to h er d isch arg e situ ati o n that sh e w an ted to b e - - wa n t e d t o g o t o h e rma ma ’ s h o me , s h e d i d n ’ twa n tt o s t a y i n t h e h o s p i t a l
. He t al ked t o D r . G ui l d, and he a l s o thoughti tw as t he r i ghtthi ng t o do. She w as no tsui ci dal. T h o se w o uld be t he tw o m ai n thi ng s, al tho ug h w e w ou l d als o expec thi m t o conf

i r m var i ous di s cus s i ons he had w i th D r . G ui l d that ’ s been t es t i f i ed t o by D r . G ui l d.

### 7

¶17. A f

t erthe of f erof pr oof , the t r i al cour tdeni ed any t es t i m ony fr om H err i ng. B eca us e the
courtdeni ed the t es t i m ony, D r . G ui l d re ques t ed t he cour tgi ve a nega t i ve i nf er ence i ns truct i on to th e ju ry . T h e c o u rt re fu se d th e in stru c tio n w ith o u t co m m e n t. ¶18. T he j ury r eturned a ve r di ctf orD r . G ui l d on A ugus t24, 2004. A f i nal j udgm entw as ent er ed by the tr i al c our ton A ugus t26, 2004. O n N ovember22, 2004, the tr i al courtdeni ed Y oung’ s m ot i on f

ora new tr i al
. O n D ece m ber17, 2004, Y oung appeal ed, and on D ece m ber 29, 2004, D r . G ui l d cr os s - appea l ed. DI S CUS S I ON ON DI RE CT AP P EA L ¶ 1 9
. Y o u n g ra ise s th e fo llo w in g iss u e s o n d ire c t ap p e a l: I . W hetherthe Tri al C our tE rr ed W hen I tG r ant ed A l l A bs tr actI ns truct i ons and D eni ed Y oung’ s Pr opos ed I ns truct i ons P- 5 A nd P- 6. I I . W het herthe Tri al C our tE rr ed i n D enyi ng Y oung an A ppor t i onm ent I ns truct i on. I I I . W hetherI tW as R ever s i bl e Err orf orthe Tri al C ou rtT o A dm i ti nt o E vi dence C heri e H anco ck’s Suici de N otes . I V . W hetherthe C um ul at i ve Err or s O f t he A dm i s s i on O f

I nappr opr i at e R ef

er ence s t o P r i vi l eged I nf

or m at i on and Ina dm i s s i bl e H ear s ay of C onver s at i ons w i th the D ec ed en t C o n sti tute R ev ersible E rror. I . W het her t h e T ri al C ourt E rre d W hen It G rant ed A l l A bst ract I ns t r uc t i ons and Deni e d Y oung ’ s Pro pos e d I ns t r uc t i ons P- 5 a nd P - 6. ¶20. A party i s ent i t l ed t o a j ury i nst ruct i on so l on g as i tco ncerns a gen ui ne i s s ue of
m a te ri a l f

a c t a n d th e re is c re d ib le e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e in s tru c tio n . Mar inerHeal th Car e, I nc. v. E s tate of

E dw ar ds , 964 So. 2d 1138, 1 156 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng D eLau ghterv.

### 8

L aw r ence Cou nt

y H os p. , 601 So. 2d 818, 824 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. H ow ever , thi s Courtw i l l not
rever se based o n the deni al of an instruct i on un l ess i ti s show n thatthe g rant ed instruct i on s, ta k e n a s a w h o le , d o n o t fa ir ly p re s e n t th e a p p lic a b le la w . I d . ( ci t i ng W

hitten v. Cox , 799 So. 2 d 1 , 1 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). ¶ 2 1
. W h e n c o n sid e rin g a re fu se d ju ry in s tr u c tio n , th e trial c o u rt is a ffo rd e d c o n sid e ra b le di s cr et i on, and the C our t ’ s pr i m ary conce rn on appea l i s that“ the j ury w as f ai r l y i ns truct ed and thate ach party' s pr oof
- gr ounded theory of

the ca s e w as pl ace d bef or e i t . ” Co h e n v . S ta te , 732 So. 2d 867, 872 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng Splain v. H ines , 609 So. 2d 1234, 1239 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t i ng R e ste r v . L o tt , 566 So. 2d 1266, 1269 ( M i s s. 1 99 0) ) )
. W hen ana l yzi ng the gr antor
r ef us al of a j ury i ns truct i on, tw o ques t i ons s houl d be as ked : D oes the i ns truct i on cont ai n a
corr ect s t at ementof

l aw and i s t he i ns truct i on w arr ant ed by the evi dence ? B everl y E n ters.
v. R eed , 961 So. 2d 40, 43- 44 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng H il l v. D un aw ay , 487 So. 2d 807, 809 ( M i s s . 1986) )
. A par ty i s ent i t l ed t o have j ury i ns truct i ons gi ven thatpr es enthi s theory of t he
cas e; how ever , thi s ent i t l ementi s l i m i t ed i n thatthe cour tm ay r ef us e an i ns truct i on w hi ch i ncorr ect l y s t at es the l aw , i s covered fa i r l y el s ew her e i n the i ns truct i ons , ori s w i thout fo u n d a tio n in th e e v id e n c e . H a rr is v . S ta te , 861 So. 2d 1003, 1012- 13 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Hu m p h re y v. S ta te , 7 5 9 S o . 2 d 3 6 8 , 3 8 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 0 ), s u p e r c e d e d

b y r u le o f e v id e n c e , M i ss. R . E v id . 7 0 2 , as r e c og ni z e d i n Miss. T

ran sp. Com m ’n v. McL em ore , 863 So. 2d 31, 39 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )). ¶22
. T his C ou rt has held that “[ i ] nst ruct i on s shou l d be t i ed t o the speci fi c fact s of the case and w hen gi ven mer el y i n t he abs tr act , m ay be gr ounds f orerr or . ” Mc Car t

y v. Kel lum , 667

### 9

So. 2d 1277, 1287 ( M i s s . 1995) ( quot i ng T . K . Stanley, I

nc. v. Cas on , 614 So. 2d 942, 952 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. “The t es tt o de t erm i ne w hetherornotan i ns truct i on i s abs tr acti s t o det erm i ne
w hetherornotthe i ns t ruct i on r el at es t o f act s s how n by the evi dence on the i s s ues i nvol ved i n the cas e. I f

a n i ns truct i on mer el y r el at es a pr i nci pl e of l aw w i thoutr el at i ng i tt o an i s s ue i n the cas e, i ti s a n a bs tr acti ns truct i on a nd s houl d notbe gi ven by t he C our t . ” I d . at1288 ( quot i ng Fr ed'

s Stor es, In c. v. M

& H D r ugs, I

nc. , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 9 0 2 , 9 1 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 )). “A bs tr acti ns truct i ons on l egal pr i nci pl es unr el at ed t o f act s and i s s ues s etouti n t he instruction s are d an g ero u s, b ec au se, alth o u g h they m ay b e c o rrect i n p ri n ciple, th ey req u ir e l egal tr ai ni ng t o pr oper l y i nt erpr et . ” I d . at1287. Ins truct i ons thatdo noti nf or m the j ury w hat act i ons orf

act s cons t i tut e negl i gence run the r i s k of al l ow i ng the j ury t o det erm i ne ques t i ons
o f la w a s w e ll a s q u e s tio n s o f f a c t. P eoples Ban k & Trus t Co. v. Cerm ack , 658 So. 2d 1352, 1361 ( M i s s . 1995)
. H ow ever , t he C our thas al so not ed that“of l at e w her e w e i ns tructour j ur i es thatal l i ns truct i ons m us tbe cons i der ed as a w hol e, w e do notcons i derabs tr actnes s as
m uch of a vi ce, though w e s t i l l do notr egar d i ta vi r tue. ” M & H D r ugs, I nc. , 725 So. 2d at 918. ¶23. Y oung ar gues t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed w hen i tre f us ed I ns truct i on N os . P
- 5 and P-6. Y oung cont ends thatthe j ury w as notpr oper l y i ns truct ed as t o the Pl ai nt i f f’ s theory of

t he
case. T he t ri al cou rthas t he respon si bil i ty to i nst ructthe jury o n the l aw app l i cable t o the case
a n d to e n s u re th a t a n y le g a l e rr o rs w h ic h a re ra is e d b y th e p a rt ie s a re c o rr e c te d
. See S avo ry
v. Firs t U

n io n N a t'l B a n ko f D e l. , 954 So. 2d 930, 9 34 (M i ss. 2007) ( ci t i ng G r i f f in v. Fletcher , 3 6 2 S o . 2 d 5 9 4 , 5 9 5 (M is s .1 9 7 8 ))
.

### 10

¶24. Y oung ar gues I ns truct i ons P- 5 and P- 6 pr oper l y advi s ed the j ury of the f act s , l aw , and theory of the ca s e. Y oung al s o cont ends thatthe j ury i ns truct i ons w er e abs tr actas a w hol e,
s i nce they onl y i ns truct ed the j ury on the bas i c el ement s of negl i gence w i thoutany r ef er ence t o spec i f i c conduct
. Y oung ar gues t hatt he cour tshoul d have atl eas tadm i t t ed s om e ver s i on
o f P
- 5 o rP
- 6 i n o r d e rt o t i e th e f a c t s o f th e c a s e t o th e a p p l i c a b l e l a w. ¶25. I ns truct i on 5 r ead: If y o u fin d fro m a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se th a t: 1. G i ven the ci r cumst ance s of C her i e S. H ancoc k’ s m edi cal condi t i on dur i ng th e tim e th e d e fe n d a n t, D o n a ld C . G u ild , s a w a n d tre a ted h e r, a m in im a lly compet entphys i ci an and ps ychi atr i s tw ho had avai l able the s ame gener al faci l i t i es , s ervi ces , equi pm entand opt i ons as D onal d C
. G ui l d had dur i ng the t i m e sh e w a s hi s pa t i e ntw ou l d n otha ve di s c ha r ge d M r s . H a nc oc k on Sept ember17, 1999 f r om St
. D om i ni c H os pi t al w i t houtper f or m i ng a compre hens i ve s ui ci de as s es s m entand pr epar i ng an ad equat e di s char ge pl an thati ncl uded t aki ng re as onabl e s t eps t o pr ovi de a s uppor t i ve envi r onm entand s uppor ts ys t em t o M r s . H ancoc k upon di s char ge; and 2
. T h e d efe n d an t D o n ald C
. G u il d fail ed to c o m p ly w ith this st an d ard o f ca re i n hi s tr eatm entof

the pl ai nt i f

f ; and 3. Such f ai l ur e on the partof

D onal d C
. G ui l d cons t i tut ed a pr oxi m at e caus e or contr i but i ng pr oxi m at e ca us e of the s ui ci de dea th of

M r s . H ancoc k, then you m us tr eturn a ver di ctf

orthe pl ai nt i f

f agai ns tthe def

endant , D onal d C
. G ui l d. ¶ 2 6
. In stru c tio n P -6 re a d : If y o u fin d [sic ] a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se th a t: 1. C her i e S. H ancoc k w as a pat i entof D r . D onal d C
. G ui l d; and 2. W hi l e a pa t i entof

D r . G ui l d, C her i e S. H ancoc k w as s uf f er i ng f r om a ment al and phys i cal condi t i on; and

### 11

3. D efendan t, D on al d C
. G uil d, shou l d h ave reasonab l y b een aw are of M rs . H a n c o c k ’s c o n d iti o n a n d w a s a w a re th a t sh e h a d p re v io u sly a ttem p ted to comm i ts ui ci de i n 1996; and 4. T hato n S eptem ber15, 1999, def endant , D onal d C
. G ui l d t es t i f i ed i n open courtunderoath i n the pr es ence of C her i e S. H ancock i n a di vor ce pr ece di ng th a t in h is op inion , if

C h erie S
. H an co ck w ere n o t al low ed to m o v e b ac k in to the mar i t al hous e thats he w oul d t ake he row n l i f e; and 5. T hatD onal d C
. G ui l d, know i ng that C her i e S. H ancoc k, had notbeen a llo w e d b y th e C o u rt to re tu rn to th e m a rital h o u se , d isc h a rg e d h e r fro m S t. D om i ni c H os pi t al tw o ( 2) days l at eron Sept ember17, 1999 w i thoutper f or m i ng a c o m p re h e n siv e su icid e a ss e ss m e n t o r o th e rw ise p re p a rin g a n a d e q u a te di s char ge pl an thati ncl uded t aki ng r eas onabl e s t eps t o pr ovi de a s uppor t i ve envi r onm entand s uppor ts ys t em forM r s . H ancoc k upon di s char ge; and 6. Tha tD on a l d C. G ui l d f a i l e d t o pr ov i de t he ca r e an d a t t e nt i on tha tCher i e S. H ancoc k’ s condi t i on r eas onabl e [ s i c] r equi r ed and w hi ch a r eas onabl e prudent a nd mi ni mal l y c ompe t e ntp s yc hi a tr i s ttr e a t i ng M r s . Hanc oc k w oul d have pr ovi ded; and 7. T hatD onal d C
. G ui l d’ s f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de s uch ca r e and a t t ent i on w as the p rox im ate ca u se o r a p rox im ate c o n tr ibu ti n g ca u se o f C h erie S
. H an co ck ’s selfi nf l i ct ed dea th by f

i r earm s on S ept ember20, 1999, t hen yourver di ctshoul d be for p lai n ti ff. ¶27. R egar dl es s of w hether or not the tr i al court s houl d have grant ed P -5 and / or P- 6, t he tr i al courtf

ai l ed t o f ul f i l l i t s ul t i m at e duty t o pr oper l y i ns tructthe j ury w i th any i ns truct i on that ti ed the fa cts an d issue s o f th e c ase to the law o f ne g li g e n c e . T h is C o u rtfi n d s the jury in stru c tio n s a s a w h o le a re a b stra c t. W h e n re a d in to to , th e in stru c tio n s p ro v id e d th e ju ry w ith the appr opr i at e s t andar d of c ar e butdi d notr el at e the s t andar d of car e t o the f

act s and i s s ues
o f th e c ase . T h e tri al co u rtsh o u ld ha v e g iven Y o u n g the o p p o rtu n ity to p lace b efo re the jury an i ns truct i on thati nf

or m ed the j ury of a l l m att er s the Pl ai nt i f f cont ended w er e ati s s ue and
nece s s ary t o pr ove hertheory of the ca s e.T hi s C our tacknow l edges thata tr i al courti s notr equi r ed t o i ns tructthe j ur y s ua 1 s p o n te o r g iv e in s tru c tio n s in a d d itio n to th o s e te n d e re d b y th e p a rt ie s . H a rr is v . S ta te , 861 So. 2d 1003, 1016 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng G ra y v. S ta te , 7 2 8 S o . 2 d 3 6 , 6 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 )); s ee al s o S a m u e ls v . S ta te , 371 So. 2d 394, 396 ( M i ss. 1 97 9) (I ti s notgener al l y the obl i gat i on of the tr i al courtt o pr epar e and s ubm i tj ury i nst ruct i on s on beha l f of the St at e ort he d efe n d an t)
. 

### Although there cord is not c le ar , it a ppears Young want ed an apporti onme nt 2 

### ins tr uction be ca

useshefe ar ed he r individua l cl ai ms would bere duce d bec aus e of theal le ged neg ligen ce of o ther h eirs. 12 ¶28. T her ef

or e, thi s C our t hol ds that w hen a tr i al court i s put on not i ce of a l egal i s s ue on
w h ich the jury sh o u ld b e ins tru cted , itis th e c o u rt ’s ulti m ate d u ty to p rop erly instruc t th e jury on thati s s ue. K

o lb e rg v. S ta te , 829 So. 2d 29, 45 ( M i s s . 2002) ( “Ther e i s no doubtthatthe 1 trial c o u rt is u lti m a tely re sp o n sib le fo r re n d e rin g p ro p e r g u id a n c e to th e jur y v ia a p p ro p ria tely gi ven j ury i ns truct i ons . ”)
. T he C our tr ever s es the j udgm ent , si nce the gi ven j ury i ns truct i ons
w er e al l abs tr act , and w hen r ead i n t ot o, they f ai l ed t o pr es entY oung’ s theory of the ca s e. I I . W het her t he T ri al C ourt E rre d i n D enying Y oung an A ppor t i onm e nt I ns t r uc t i on. ¶29. Y oung ar gues that s he w as ent i t l ed t o thi s apport i onm ent i ns truct i on. A t tr i al , Y oung
or al l y t ender ed the f

ol l ow i ng i ns truct i on: I ’m p roposi ng t o s ay that
. . . w e, the j ury f i nd f orthe pl ai nt i f

f and as s es s the damages , s o you m ay apport i on thos e damages as f ol l ow s , and l i s tthe w r ongf ul death benef

i ci ar i es , eac h one of them, and l ett he j ury say – f ori ns t ance , Y our H on or , he ’ s go i ng t o a r gu e tha tthe ho us e – tha t ’ s the ho me, the f a c ttha tthe hus band and the mi nors on, the partaboutcut t i ng t he phone l i ne of f and gett i ng the di vor ce. I ’ ve gott o tw o w r ongf ul deat h ben ef

i ci ar i es thatw er en’ teven l i vi ng athom e, had been gone f orfouryear s . A ny apport i onm entof damages as t o caus at i on by the hus band orthe s m al l es ts on cannotbe i m pu t ed t o the othertw o. 2

### 13

¶30. Y oung a r gues the apport i onm entst at ute, S ect i on 85 -5- 7 o f the M i ssi s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed, and the compar at i ve negl i gence s t atut e, Sec t i on 11- 7- 15 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed , d ire c t th e ju ry to c o n sid e r a ll co n d u c t th a t m a y h a v e p ro x im a tely c o n trib u ted to an i nj ury. A ccor di ng t o Y oung, t he tr i al courts houl d have gi ven the j ury an apport i onm ent i ns truct i on pur s uantt o Sect i on 85- 5- 7, s i nce D r . G ui l d putfor t h evi dence thatT hom as H an co ck an d o ther fam il y m em b ers c au sed H an co ck to co m m itsu ici d e . D r. G u il d ’s t es t i m ony i ndi cat ed seve r al t i m es thatH ancoc k' s f ami l y exac erbat ed herm ent al condi t i on. H e r ef err ed t o not es f

r om pr evi ous doct or s s ugges t i ng H ancoc k' s chi l dr en and pa r t i cul ar l y, herhus band, m ent al l y and physi cal l y abuse d her
. D r . G ui l d al s o st at ed thatherf ami l y knew f r om a pr e vi ou s d oc t ortha ts he was n ott o ha ve a c c e s s t o a ny g un s . Pi gg ' s t es t i m ony i ncl uded var i ous r ef

er ence s t o negat i ve i nt er act i ons betw een H ancoc k and herf a mi l y a nd how the di vor ce a nd thos e i nt er act i ons had adve r s el y af f ect ed H ancoc k. ¶3 1. O n t he ot herhan d, Dr . Gui l d a s s e r t s tha tYoung wai ve d the r i ghtt o r eques t an appor t i onm enti ns truct i on w hen Y oung sw or e i n an i nt err ogat ory r es pons e thatno hei r - at - l aw
exace rbat ed H anco ck’s m ental i l l ness. D r. G uil d cit es Coho Res our c e s, I nc . v. Mc Car t

hy , w h ere this C o u rth eld th at a fail u re to raise th e issu e o f an o ther tortfeaso r du ri n g d isco v ery b a rr e d th e ri g h t to a n a p p o rt io n m e n t in s tru c tio n . Mc Car thy , 8 2 9 S o . 2 d 1 , 2 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). ¶32. I n Mc Car thy , the pl ai nt i f f s erved an i nt err ogat ory on the def endant s, reques t i ng t he id e n tity o f a n y p a rt ie s th e d e fe n d a n ts w o u ld c o n te n d c a u s e d th e a c c id e n t. I d. T h e d e fe n d a n ts di d noti dent i f

y any addi t i onal part i es i n thei rans w er , nordi d they suppl ementthei rr es pons e.

### 14

I d . C o n se q u e n tly , the C o u rt fo u n d th e y h a d w a iv e d a n y rig h t th e y h a d to a p p o rtio n fa u lt t o
a n o th e r t o rt fe a s o r. Id
. ¶ 3 3
. T h e C o u rt fin d s th a t Mc Car thy c o n tro ls th e o u tco m e fo r th is is su e . Y o u n g s tate d in a di s covery r es pons e thatno hei rhad exace rbat ed H ancoc k’ s m ent al i l l nes s . Y oung pr ovi des
no othertheo ry as t o h ow an h ei r coul d b e held part i al l y respon si b le for the suici de. T hu s, Y oung’ s deni al i s bi ndi ng on her , and w ai ves herr i ghtt o an apport i onm enti ns truct i on. III. W h eth er It W a s R ev er sible E rr o r fo r th e T rial C o u rt T o A d m it into E viden ce C h eri e H an cock ’s S u i ci d e N otes. ¶3 4. T he s t andar d of r e vi e w go ve rni ng the a dmi s s i bi l i ty of e vi de nc e i s w he the r the t r i al
c o u rt a b u s e d i ts d is c re tio n . B u llo c kv. L o tt , 9 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 3 2 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 7 )
. An
e rr o n e o u s e v id e n tia ry ru lin g a lo n e d o e s n o t w a rr a n t r e v e rs a l. Y oung v. Cit

y of B r ookhaven , 693 So. 2d 1355, 1358 ( M i s s . 1997)
. T he C our tm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe properl egal
s ta n d a rd s w e re a p p lie d a n d p re ju d ic e re s u lte d b e fo re re v e rs a l is w a rr a n te d
. I d. ¶3 5 . D r. G u il d en tered as an ex h ibit su ici d e n o tes the sh eriff’s o ffi ce fo u n d in H an co ck ’s bedr oo m an d i n he rmothe r ’ s h ome. The e xh i bi ta l s o c on t a i ne d ha nd w r i t t e n l e t t e r s , w hi ch Pi gg and Y oung att es t ed w er e w r i t t en by H ancoc k. A tt r i al , Y oung obj ect ed t o the admi s s i on of t he sui ci de not es and ar gued t hey w er e neveraut hent i cat ed. T he obj ect i on w as overrul ed. Y o u n g co n tend s the ad m issi o n o f th e su ici d e n o tes i s rev ersible e rror. ¶ 3 6
. R u le 9 0 1 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f E v ide n c e g o v e rn s th e a u th e n tica tio n re q u ire m e n ts fo r e v id e n c e . S e w e ll v. S ta te , 721 So. 2d 12 9, 1 40 (M i s s . 1998)
. A uthent i cat i on r equi r es evi dence su ff

i ci entt o s uppor ta f

i ndi ng thatthe mat t eri n ques t i on i s w hati t s pr oponent

### 15

c la im s . I

d. ; M is s . R . E v id . 9 0 1 (a ). A p e r s on ' s h a nd w r i t i ng may b e a uthe nt i c a t e d by a l ay
w itn e s s w h o is fa m ilia r w ith th e h a n d w ri tin g . S e w e ll , 721 So. 2d at140 ( ci t i ng He n tz v . S ta te , 542 So. 2d 914, 917 ( M i s s . 1989) )
. Such an authent i cat ed documentmay be us ed by the tr i er
o f f a c t in c o m p a ri s o n w ith a sp e c im e n fo r w h ic h a u th e n tic ity is in q u e s tio n . M i s s . R . E vi d. 901( b) ( 3)
. A pa r ty ne ed onl y make a pr i m a f aci e s how i ng of

a uthent i ci ty, nota f

ul l ar gum ent
o n a d m is s ib ility
. S e w e ll , 721 So. 2d at140. “O nce a pr i m a f aci e cas e i s m ade, the evi dence goes t o the j ury and i ti s t he j ury w ho w i l l ul t i m at el y det erm i ne the authent i ci ty of t he evi dence , notthe court . T he onl y r equi r ementi s thatther e has been s ubs t ant i al evi dence f r om
w hich they cou l d inf

er that the d ocu m ent w as authen t i c. " I d. ¶3 7 . T h e C o u rtfi n d s th at th e let ters H an co ck w rote to Y o u n g a n d h e r c h ild re n w h ile hos pi t al i zed w er e s uf

f i ci ent l y a uthent i cat ed by Y oung’ s t es t i m ony. L i kew i s e, dur i ng hert r i al test im o n y , P igg su ffi cien tl y au then ti ca ted a let ter H an co ck w rote to h er. T h e tri al co u rt app ropri at el y all ow ed the j ury t o co m pare the lett ers w i th the una uthent i cat ed sui ci de n otes . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. IV . W h eth er th e C u m u lati v e E rr o rs o f t h e A d m issi o n of In a p p ro p riate R ef ere nces t o P ri vi l eged I nf orm at i on and I nadm i s s i bl e H ears ay of C onv e r s at i ons wi t h t he D ece dent C onst i t ut e R ever s i bl e E rror . ¶38. T he s t andar d of

r evi ew gove rni ng the admi s si bil i t y o f evi den ce i s w het her the tr i al
c o u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n . B u llo c kv. L o tt , 9 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 3 2 ( Mi s s . 2 0 0 7 )
. An
e rr o n e o u s e v id e n tia ry ru lin g a lo n e d o e s n o t w a rr a n t r e v e rs a l. Y oung v. Cit

y of B r ookhaven , 693 So. 2d 1355, 1358 ( M i s s . 1997)
. T he C our tm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe pr operl egal
s ta n d a rd s w e re a p p lie d a n d p re ju d ic e re s u lte d b e fo re re v e rs a l is w a rr a n te d
. I d.

### 16 A . W h eth er D r. G u il d ’s C o u n sel E rr ed W h en H e M a d e C o m m en ts R e ga r di ng H anc oc k’ s D i vo r c e A t t or ne y Af t er Young I nvo ke d t he A t t orney- C l i ent P ri vi l ege. ¶39. Y oung cont ends D r . G ui l d’ s couns el i nappr opr i at el y comm ent ed t o the j ury thatt hey
w oul d nothearf

r om H ancoc k’ s di vor ce a t t orney, J i m H err i ng, de s pi t e Y oung’ s c l ai m of the att orney/ cl i entpr i vi l ege. Y oung cl ai m s thatthes e comm ent s w er e pr ej ud i ci al t o her , s i nce they leftthe ju ry to co n side r th at H erring ’s t esti m o n y w o u ld h av e b ee n d etri m en tal to h er. D r. G ui l d r es ponds thatthe tr i al j udge i ns truct ed t he j ury t o di s r egar d the comm entaboutH err i ng,
s o any err orw as cur ed. ¶4 0. I n P arke rv. J

one s Count

y Com m uni t

y Hos pi tal , this C o u rt ru led th a t c e rta in te s tim o n y v io la te d th e M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f E v id e n c e a n d w a s in a d m is s ib le
. P arker , 549 So. 2d 443, 445 ( M i s s . 1989)
. The Courtthen not ed the tr i al courts us t ai ned the obj ect i on t o t he te s tim o n y a n d in s tru c te d th e ju ry to d is re g a rd th e te s tim o n y . I d . T he C our tst at ed that“[ t ] he l aw of err orand cur at i ve i ns truct i ons s eems t o be an a nal og t o h arml es s err or . ” I d. “G ener al l y s peaki ng, ourl aw pr es um es thatj ur or s f ol l ow t he tr i al j udge’ s i ns truct i ons , as upon thei roaths they ar e obl i ged t o do. ” Jer r y L ee' s G r ocer y, I nc. v. T hom ps on , 528 So. 2d 293, 295 ( M i ss. 1 98 8). T hus , a tr i al court ’ s admoni s hm entt o the j ury t o di s r egar d an i m pr operques t i on and ans w eri s gener al l y s uf f i ci entt o cur e any t ai nt . The C our tconcl udes that this i ssu e d o es n o t con tr ibu te t o an y rev ersible e rror.

B . W het her t he T ri al C ourt E rre d i n A dm i t t i ng H ears ay i n t he F orm of C onvers at i ons bet w een Pi gg and H ancock .

### 17

¶41. Y oung al s o aver s that thr oughout Pi gg’ s exami nat i on, Pi gg r ef err ed t o conver s at i ons b e tw e e n h e rse lf a n d H a n c o c k w h ich w e re h e a rsa y . Y o u n g fu rth e r a rg u e s th a t th e sta tem e n ts
w er e i rr el evant , unf

ai r l y pr ej udi ci al , conf

us i ng, and mi s l eadi ng. D r . G ui l d not es thatY oung f ai l ed t o i dent i f

y any part i cul ars t at ement s . D r . G ui l d al s o ar gues thatY oung el i ci t ed hea r s ay
s t at ement s , s i m i l art o t hos e compl ai ned of , w hen s he t es t i f

i ed aboutconver s at i ons betw een her s el f a nd H ancoc k. D r . G ui l d f ur therar gues the conve r s at i ons w er e hea r s ay exc ept i ons , as they w entt o H ancoc k’ s s t at e of m i nd. ¶42. Y oung br oadl y s t at es that Pi gg’ s t es t i m ony cons t i tut ed hear s ay, but f ai l ed t o pr ovi de this C o u rtw ith an y referen ce t o th at t esti m o n y . W ith o u t su p p o rtfr o m the re co rd, th is C o u rt is n o t r e q u ir e d to ru le u p o n th e m e ri ts o f Y o u n g ’s a rg u m e n t. See V a rv a ris v. P e rr e a u lt, 813 So. 2d 750, 753 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2001) ( “The ar gum ents hal l cont ai n t he cont ent i ons of t he
a p p e llan t w ith re sp e c t to th e iss u e s p re se n ted , an d th e re a so n s fo r th o se c o n ten tio n s, w ith ci t at i ons t o t he author i t i es , st atut es , and par t s of the r ecor d r el i ed upon. ”)
. T her ef or e, w e nee d notdeci de thi s i s s ue.

C . W het her t he T ri al C ourt E rre d i n A dm i t t i ng H ears ay i n t he F orm of U ndocum ent ed C onvers at i ons bet w een D r. G ui l d and H ancock. ¶ 4 3
. T h e third err o r Y o u n g rais e s is th a t D r. G u ild , d u rin g h is e x a m in a tio n , re p e a ted ly ref erenced co nv ers at i on s bet w een h i m sel f and H anco ck. D r. G uil d clai m s that these
c o n v e rsa tio n s c o n tain e d sta tem e n ts m a d e fo r th e p u rp o se o f m e d ica l dia g n o sis o r tre a tm e n t. H ow ever , Y oung r epl i es thatthes e s t at ement s do notm eett he t rus tw or thi nes s re qui r ementof M iss issi p p i R u le of E v iden ce 8 0 3 (4 ) b ec au se th ey w ere n o t w ri tt en d o w n in D r. G u il d ’s

### 18

m edi cal r ecor ds
. D r . G ui l d a r gues thatM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 803( 4) cont ai ns no s uch
r equi r ementorl i m i t at i on. ¶ 4 4
. O n c e a g a in , Y o u n g h a s fa iled to p ro v id e this C o u rt w ith an y d ire c tio n as to th e sp e c ific t es t i m ony ati s s ue. W i thoutsupportfr om t he r ecor d, t hi s C our ti s notr equi r ed t o rul e upon the mer i t s of

Y oung’ s ar gum ent . T her ef or e, the C our tdoes notdeci de thi s i s s ue. ON CROS S - AP P EA L ¶ 4 5 . D r. G u ild ra ise s th e fo llo w in g iss u e s o n c ro ss -a p p e a l: I. W hetherthe T ri al C ou rtE rr ed in D eny i ng S um m ary Ju dg m ent B ecause Y ou ng Fail ed t o P rovi de E vidence S uff i ci ent forthe Irres i st ible Im pu l se D octr i ne. I I . W hetherthe C our tShoul d H ave A l l ow ed D r . G ui l d t o D epos e H err i ng. I I I . W hetherthe C our tE r r ed i n D enyi ng D r . G ui l d’ s I nf er ence I ns truct i on.
I. W h ether the T ri al C ou rt E rred i n D en ying S u m m ary Ju d gm en t B ecau se Y ou n g F ail ed to P rov i d e E viden ce S u ff i ci en t f o r the Irresi st i b l e Im p u l se D oct ri ne. ¶4 6. “Thi s C our tr e vi e w s s umm a ry j ud gmen t s d e n ov o. ” U ni v. of Mis s . Med. Ctr. v. Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d 815, 817 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. Pur s uantt o R ul e 56 of the M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , “[t]he ju d g m e n t so u g h t sh a ll b e re n d e re d fo rth w ith if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to ri e s a n d a d m iss io n s o n file, to g e th e r w ith th e a f f i d a v i t s , i f

a n y , s h o w t h a tth e r e i s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a n y ma t e r i a l f a c t . ” M i s s . R. C iv. P. 56 (c )
. T he courtvi ew s the evi dence i n the l i ghtmostf avor abl e t o the n on m ovi ng

### 19

p a rt y . Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d at817. “The m ovi ng par ty bear s the bur den of demonstr at i ng ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

act . ” I d. ¶ 4 7 . In M is s is s ip p i, su ic id e is a c o m m o n la w c ri m e . B o u tw e ll v. S ta te , 181 M i s s . 509, 178 S o . 5 8 5 , 5 8 7 (1 9 3 8 ); s ee Sham bur ge rv. G r and

Cas ino o

f Mis s . , I nc . , 84 F. Supp. 2d 794, 7 9 8 (S
. D . M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). S u ici d e is u su a lly a n interve n ing , su p erc ed ing ca u se th at cu ts off lia b ility
. See S ta te ex re l. R ich a rdso n v. E d g e w o rth , 214 So. 2d 579, 586 ( M i s s . 1968) ( s t at i ng that“[ r ] ecove r y i n w r ongf ul death act i ons ha s be en deni ed i n s ever al cas es w her e the dece dentcomm i t t ed s ui ci de, on the gr ound thatthe s ui ci de w as an unf or es eea bl e, i nt erveni ng
caus e of death”)
. I n 1968, thi s C our tr ecogni zed the Ir res i s t i bl e I m pul s e D octr i ne as an
e x c e p tio n to th e ru le th a t a p la in tif f c o u ld n o t re c o v e r f

o r a s u ic id e . See id. at579. U ndert he I rr es i s t i bl e I m pul s e D octr i ne, a pl ai nt i f f may r ecove rw hen a t or t f eas orhas ( 1) comm i t t ed an in te n tio n a l t o rt th a t ( 2 ) c a u s e s a n ir re s is tib le im p u ls e in th e d e c e d e n t to c o m m it s u ic id e . See id . at587. ¶48. I n E d

g e w o rth , the pl ai nt i f

f s al l eged thattw o j us t i ces of the pea ce a nd thei rdeput i es
c o m m itte d in te n tio n a l t o rt s , th e a b u s e o f p ro c e s s , w h ic h le d to th e d e c e d e n t’ s s u ic id e . I d . at 586. T he C our tdecl i ned t o consi derthe cr i m i nal i ty of the dec edent ’ s s ui ci de, s i nce the “pl ai nt i f f s ’ evi dence [ m ade] a j ury i s s ue as t o w hetheras a r es ul tof def endant s ’ i nt ent i onal t or t s , [ the dec edent ] act ed underan i rr es i s t i bl e i m pul s e and c om m i t t ed sui ci de. ” I d . T he C our tf ound thatthe “i nt ent i onal conduct[ of t he def endant s w as ] a l egal caus e of har m t o the p la in tif fs [s in c e ] th e irin d iv id u a l a c ts w e re s u b s ta n ti a l f a c to rs in b ri n g in g a b o u t th e h a rm .” I d . T he C our thel d:

### 20

[ W ] her e the sui ci de i s comm i t t ed i n r es pons e t o an uncontr ol l abl e i m pul s e, r ecove r y m ay be had i

f the m entals tat e of

de ceas ed w as s ubs tant i al l y caus ed by the def

endant ’ s i nt ent i onal w r ongf ul a ct s , a nd w hetherthey w er e s ubs t ant i al f act or s i n br i ngi ng aboutthe dea th by s ui ci de may be i s s ues f orthe j ury. I d. at5 87 (em ph as i s added)
. B eca us e the f act s s how ed the dec edentact ed underan i rr es i s t i bl e i m pul s e, the C our tdi d “notr eac h t he addi t i onal i s s ues cons i der ed i n T ate v. Canoni ca , w hi ch al l ow ed r ecove r y fors ui ci de ca us ed by an i nt ent i onal t or ti f the ment al
s tr es s w hi ch the def

endanti nf

l i ct ed w as a s ubs t ant i al caus e of the s ui ci de, even i f

the dec edent
w as aw ar e of

hi s actand w as notr es pondi ng t o an i rr es i s t i bl e i m pul s e. ” I d. a t5 86 ( ci t i ng T ate v. Canoni ca , 1 8 0 C a l. A p p . 2 d 8 9 8 (1 9 6 0 ))
. ¶49. T he C our ti n Edge wor th a ls o lo o k e d to a p ri o r c a s e , P r entis s T r uck & T

r actor Co. v. Spencer , 228 M i s s . 66, 87 So. 2d 272 ( 1956) , as s uppor tf ori t s hol di ng. I n Spencer , a w i dow fi le d fo r d e a th b e n e fi ts u n d e r th e M is s is s ip p i W o rk m e n ’s C o m p e n s a tio n A c t. Spencer , 87 S o. 2d at273- 74. She cl ai m ed bene f i t s af t erhe rhus band comm i t t ed s ui ci de due t o a w or k i nj ur y. I d . at 27 5 . U n d er th e W o rkm en ’s C o m p en sati o n A ct, th e p lai n ti ff ha d to sh o w the d ec ed en t’ s d e a th w a s n o t w illf

u l. I d . at276. T he C ourtaff i rmed an aw ar d of

compensa t i on, s i nce the evi dence s how ed: [ T] h e d e c e a s e d e mp l o y e e t o o k h i s l i f e a ta t i me wh e n h e wa s s u f f e r i n g f r o m a m e n tal d istu rb a n c e o f d e p re ss iv e in sa n ity a n d d id n o t h a v e th e m e n tal c a p a c ity t o d et erm i ne the con sequen ces of hi s act ; that his m ental cond i t i on w as br ought a b o u t by the i nj ury re cei ved by hi m w hi l e w orki ng forhi s em pl oyer , and that hi s r eas oni ng f

acult i es w er e s o f

ari m pai r ed thathi s s el f
- des truct i on w as not v o lu n tar y a n d w ilfu l. I d . at 27 9 (em p h asis ad d ed ).

### Th e court thenwent into a leng thydiscu ssionof a “m en ta l ‘co nd ition ’” versu s a 3 

### “m ent al‘i llnes s, ’”and found a plaintif f mus t show that thedec ede nt s uff er ed f rom a m ent al illness at th e time of d eath. Id. at 799-800. If

thedec ede nt s uff

er s f rom a m ent alcondi ti on, the co urt fo un d th at the su icide is v olitio nal, an d thus, aninterv enin g cau se. Id. S hamburger requ ires exp ert testimony th at the su icidal actions of the deced ent aro se 4 

### from anirresistible imp ulse. Id. at 799. 21 ¶50. T he f

eder al court s have f

ol l ow ed E d

g e w o rth a nd al l ow ed compens at i on f or a s ui ci de
o n ly upon a s how i ng thata n i nt ent i onal t or tc aus ed an i rr es i s t i bl e i m pul s e w hi ch then ca us ed the dec edentt o comm i ts ui ci de. Fori ns t ance , i n Sham burger v. G r and Cas ino of Mis s is s i ppi , I nc. , the d e c e d e n t’s h e irs c laim e d th a t G ra n d C a sin o c a u se d th e d e c e d e n t to
comm i ts ui ci de w hen i tturned overba d c hecks w r i t t en by the dece dentt o the di s tr i ctatt or ney. Sham burge r , 84 F. Supp. 2d 79 4, 7 96 -98 ( S. D . M i s s . 1998)
. T he f eder al courtappl i ed M iss iss ip p i law , rec o g n izin g th a t Edge wor th w as the “s emi nal cas e” thatart i cul at ed the I r r e s is tib le Im p u ls e D o c tr in e . I d. at 79 8
. T h e c o u rtstat ed “M issi ssipp i no w ap p are n tly p e rm its re c o v e ry if, at th e tim e o f su icid e , the d e c e d e n t w a s a c tin g u n d e r a n irre sis tib le i m pul s e pr oxi m at el y caus ed by the i nt ent i onal w r ongf ul c onductof

the def endant
. ” I

d . T he
cou rtthen a rt icul at ed the f oll ow i ng t estforrecovery i n M i ssi ssi pp i : 1) the d ecede nt m ust
s uf f erf r om a “ment al di s turbance ”; 2) the dec edentm us tnotact vo l i t i onal l y w i th t he 3 under s t andi ng of

hi s cons equenc es ; and 3) “t he i m pul s e m us ti n f actbe pr oxi m at el y caus ed b y th e w ro n g fu l c o n d u c t o f th e d e fe n d a n t.” I d . at799. T he courtgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm ent 4 t o the def endant , G r and C as i no, s i nce the pl ai nt i f f s ha d f ai l ed t o pr ovi de expe r tt es t i m ony that th e d e c e d e n t h a d s u ff

e re d fr o m a n ir re s is tib le im p u ls e a t th e tim e o f d e a th
. I d . E x p ert

### 22

te s tim o n y e s ta b lis h e d th e d e c e d e n t a c te d v o litio n a lly in c o m m ittin g s u ic id e . I d. at800. T he
courtrul ed thatthe dec edent ’ s act i ons w er e vol un t ary, and as s uch, the s ui ci de br oke the
c a u s a l c h a in
. I

d . at799. ¶51. I n G u n n v. City o f Co rin th , th e d e c e d e n t c o m m itt e d su icid e b y h a n g in g h im se lf w ith h is b e lt in a ja il c e ll. G unn , No . 1 : 9 0
- CV
- 2 2 2
- B- D, 1 9 9 9 U. S
. Di s t . L E XI S 4 2 6 3 , a t* 2 ( N. D. M i s s . M a r . 3 0 , 1 9 9 9 )
. Th e j a i l o f f i c e r s we r e s u p p o s e d t o s e a r c h a n d r e mo v e p e r s o n a l i t e ms
s u c h a s th e b e lt p ri o r t o p la c in g th e d e ta in e e in th e c e ll. I d. T he of

f i cer s f ai l ed t o r emove t he b e lt a n d fa ile d to m o n ito r th e c e ll. I d. a t * 3 -* 4 . T h e d istric t co u rt sta ted “ [t] o a ss e rt a c laim underM i s s i s s i ppi l aw forw r ongf ul death fr om sui ci de, t he pl ai nt i f f m us ts how thatthe s ui ci de
w as comm i t t ed i n re s pons e t o an i rr es i s t i bl e i m pul s e pr oxi m at el y r es ul t i ng f r om t he def endant ' s i nt ent i onal w r ongf ul act . ” I d . at*10- *11 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed)
. T he courthel d that the pl ai nt i f

f f ai l ed t o m ake a pr i m a f

aci e cas e of

w r ongf ul death, si nce the pl ai nt i f f di d notput fo rt h a n y e v id e n c e th a t t h e o ff ic e rs c o m m itte d a n in te n tio n a l to rt . I d . at*1 1. T he C ou rtal so not ed thatt he of

f i cer ’ s f ai l ur e t o r emove t he bel tai ded the dec edent , butthe f ai l ur e di d not
c a u s e a n ir re s is tib le im p u ls e . I d. ¶ 5 2
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s a lso re c e n tly c o n sid e re d th e Irre sis tib le I m p u lse D o c trin e in the cont extof a w r ongf

ul death s ui ci de ca s e. I n Collu m s ex rel . Collu m s v. U

n i on P lan ters Ba n k, N. A. , t he p l ai nti ff s al l eged that the b ank ’s for ecl o su re of the d ecede nt’ s busi ness
c a u se d the d e c e d e n t t o co m m it s u ic id e . Co l lu ms , 832 So. 2d 572, 575- 76 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2 0 0 2 ) (up h o lding circu itco u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary jud g m en t t o d efe n d an ts)
. T h e p lai n ti ffs
as s ert ed var i ous cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng i nt ent i onal inf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s and negl i gent

### 23

in fl ic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . I d . at576. T he Collu m s courtci t ed E d g e w o rth f

orthe pr opos i t i on that“sui ci de i s act i onabl e i f the s ui ci de i s pr oxi m at el y caus ed by i nt ent i onal
w r ongdoi ng by t he def

endantand i s the r es ul tof an i rr es i s t i bl e i m pul s e. ” I d . at57 7 (ci t i ng S tate ex rel. R ich a rd

so n v. E d

g e w o rth , 2 1 4 S o . 2 d 5 7 9 , 5 8 5 -88 (M iss. 1 9 6 8 )). T h e c o u rt
n o ted th a t it“ v iew [ed ] i rre sis tib le im p u lse a s a fa ilu re to c o n tro l th e b o d y a n d n o t b e a b le to under s t and the cons equenc es of cert ai n act i ons . ” I

d . at578. T he C our tof

A ppeal s coul d not id e n tif y a n in te n tio n a l to rt b y th e d e fe n d a n ts . I d. The Courto f

Appe a l s a l s o rul e d t hatt he d e c e d e n t “p lan n e d h is s u icid e a n d k n e w the b e n e fits th a t his fam ily w o u ld re c e iv e u p o n h is death f r om hi s l i f

e i ns ur ance pol i ci es . ” I d . ¶5 3
. A lth o u g h the Irresist ible Im p u lse D o ctri n e re m ains pa rtof M issi ssipp i law , this C o u rt has nev er address ed i t s appli cabil i ty in the co ntextof a m edical m al pract i ce case fi l ed ag ai nst
a d o c to r w h o tre a ted a p a tien t fo r th e m e n tal c o n d iti o n w h ich led to th e p a tien t’s s u icid e . T h is C o u rt , the M issi ssipp i C o u rto f A p p ea ls, an d the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor th e S o u thern D i s tr i cthave de ci ded ca s es i n w hi ch cl ai m ant s w er e al l ow ed t o proc eed on a theory of negl i gence i n w r ongf

ul d eat h sui ci de ca s es . N one of thes e ca s es , how ever , addr es s t he
c o m m o n la w ru le b a rr in g re c o v e ry in s u ic id e c a s e s . See E sta te o f Mo ff e tt v. Sm ithKline B e e c h a m Co r

p ., N o. 1: 03cv532W J G
- J M R , 2005 U
. S. D i s t . LE X I S 34326 ( S. D . M i s s . J une 9 , 2 0 0 5 ); Car r ington v. Meth odist Med. Ctr. , I

nc. , 7 4 0 S o . 2 d 8 2 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); Mis s is s i ppi State H os p. v. W ood , 8 2 3 S o . 2 d 5 9 8 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶54. I n Car r ington , the d eced en t co m m it ted su ici de w hil e i n the care of the M et ho dis t M ed ical C en ter. Car r ington , 740 So. 2d at828. T he pl ai nt i f f s al l eged thatM ethodi s t“f ai l ed

### Th is Co urt no tes th e p laintiff’s exp ert testified th e ho spital’s actio ns “substantially 5 

### inc re as ed the l ike lihood that [ thedec ede nt] would have both the opportuni ty and a com pelling p sycho log ical im pu lse to d

o h arm to h erself

.” Id. at 601 (emp hasis adde d). Whil e the e xpert’s o pinion addres se s an “i mpul se ,”that impul sewas not c aus ed by an int entiona l t ort , a

re quired e le me nt unde r the Irr es is tibleIm puls e Doc trine
. 24 t o ex erci se ordi nary and r easona ble care i n the cu st od y o f J am es C arr i ng t on , that M et ho dis t depart ed f

r om t he gener al l y acce pt ed and r ecogni zed s t andar d of ca r e and ski l l i n t he car e and
cus t ody of

J ames Car r i ngt on . . . . ” I d . M ethodi s tas s ert ed i m m uni ty underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A n n o tate d S e c tio n 4 1 -2 1 -1 0 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ), w h ich g ra n ts im m u n ity fo r g o o d fa ith a c ts in
c o m m itm e n t p ro c e e d in g s . Id
. T hi s C our thel d “the s t atut e does noti m m uni ze ne gl i gent
cus t odi al car e. ” Id
. ¶55. I n Mis s is s i

ppiState H

os pital v. W ood , t he C ou rto f A pp eal s appl i ed the phys i ci an
s ta n d a rd o f c a re in d e te rm in in g w h e th e r a h o s p ita l w a s lia b le fo r a p a tie n t’ s s u ic id e . W ood , 823 So. 2d at602. I n W ood , the pat i entvol unt ar i l y com m i t t ed her s el f , and w hi l e r ece i vi ng tr e a tm e n t in th e h o s p ita l, s h e c o m m itte d s u ic id e . I d . at600. T he tr i al courtand C our tof A ppeals anal yzed the ca s e as a norm al m edi cal m al pr act i ce c as e. See Id
. at600- 602. T he 5 C our tof A ppeal s af

f i r m ed the tr i al court ’ s j udgm entf orthe pl ai nti ff

, st at i ng “w e f

i nd that ther e i s , beyond ques t i on, s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d t o s uppor tthe tr i al court ’ s f actual det erm i nat i on es t abl i s hi ng both t he s t andar d of car e and i t s vi ol at i on by M SH
. ” I d . at602. ¶56. I n E sta te o

f Mo ffe tt v. Sm ithK

line B eec ham Cor

p. , the p lain tiff fil e d a w ro n g fu l d e a th sui ci de acti on al l eging “n egli gen ce, st ri ctli abil i ty, b reach o f express and i m pli ed w arr anti es, br eac h of

contr act , f

r aud, bat t ery, and l os s of cons or t i um . ” Mo

ffe tt , No . 1 : 0 3 c v 5 3 2 W J G-

### 25

J M R , 2005 U
. S. D i s t . L E X I S 34326 *2-*3 ( S. D . M i s s . J une 9, 2005)
. T he pl ai nt i f f’ s hus band
c o m m itt e d su icid e a fte r ta k in g P a x il fo r d e p re s s io n . I d . at*2. T he def

endant s m oved f

or
s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I

d. a t * 1
. ¶ 5 7 . T h e c o u rta n a ly z e d th e c a s e u n d e r M is s is s ip p i’ s p ro d u c t lia b ility s ta tu te . I d . at*6. T he courtf

ound thatthe pl ai nt i f

f’ s e xpertr eportw as i nadequa t e and the expe r tf ai l ed t o s how P a x il c a u s e d th e d e c e d e n t to c o m m it s u ic id e . I d. a t* 1 1
- 1 2
. Th e c o u r tn o t e d wh i l e “ s o me degr ee of s pecul at i on i s nece s s ary i n cas es w hi ch turn on m edi cal caus at i on, the M i s s i s s i ppi S u p re m e C o u rt h a s in sis ted , ‘th a t pr o o f o f c a u sa tio n re m a in w ith in th e re a lm o f th e re a so n a b ly pr obabl e, ’ r a the rtha n ‘ the m er el y s pecul at i vel y pos s i bl e. ’ ” I d . ( quot i ng H

ar r is v. Shi el

ds , 568 S o . 2 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 3 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ))
. ¶58. W e hol d t oday thatthe I r r es i s t i bl e I m pul s e D octr i ne i s i nappl i cabl e t o a phys i ci an or otherm edi cal pr ovi derf r om w hom tr eatm enti s s oughtf ora me ntal co ndi t i on, w her e the pl ai nt i f f cl ai m s t hatt he negl i gentcar e l ed t o the s ui ci de. Such cas es m us tpr ocee d underthe
an alys is r eq u ir ed in o ther m ed ical ne g li g en ce ca ses. A p p lyin g th e se p ri n ciples to tod ay ’s
cas e, w e hol d t he tr i al courtdi d noterri n denyi ng s um m ary j udgm entt o D r . G ui l d. II. W h ether the C o u rt S h ou l d H av e A l l ow ed D r. G u i l d to D ep ose H err i ng. ¶59. T hi s C our thas s t at ed “‘ [ t ] he appl i cat i on of pr i vi l ege i s pr oper l y a mi xed ques t i on of law a n d fa c t, w ith th e c irc u it co u rt’s f a c tu a l fin d in g s re v iew e d f o r c lea r e rro r a n d its i nt erpr et at i on of

the l aw r evi ew ed de novo. ’ ” N es terv. Jerni

gan , 90 8 S o. 2d 14 5, 14 7 (M i ss.

### 26

2005) ( quot i ng Hew es v. L angston , 853 So. 2d 1237, 1241 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng U nited States
v. N eal , 2 7 F .3 d 1 0 3 5 , 1 0 4 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )) ). ¶60. Pur s uant t o R ul e 502 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence , “[ a] cl i ent has a pr i vi l ege t o r ef us e t o di s cl ose and t o pr eventany otherper s on f r om di s cl os i ng conf

i dent i al
c omm un i cat i ons m ade f orthe purpos e of

f aci l i t at i ng the r endi t i on of pr of es s i onal l egal
serv ices to th e c li en t (1) b etw ee n h im self or h is r ep rese n tat ive a n d h is l aw y er o r his law y er’s
re p re se n tativ e . . . .” M iss . R . E v id . 5 0 2 (b ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 73- 3- 37( 4) ( R ev. 2008) ( s t at i ng t hatan at t orney has the duty “[ t ] o m ai nt ai n i nvi ol at e the
co n fi d en ce an d , at ev ery p eril to the m selv es, t o p rese rve the s ec rets of the ircli en ts”). C o n fi d e n tia l c o m m u n ic a tio n s c a n b e a c tio n s a s w e ll a s w o rd s . H a y de n v. S ta te , 972 So. 2d 5 2 5 , 5 3 2 (M iss
. 2 0 0 7 ). A rep re se n tativ e o f a la w y e r is a p e rso n “ e m p lo y e d b y th e law y e r to assist th e law y er in the ren d it ion o f pro fession al l e g a l se rv ice s. ” M iss. R . E v id. 50 2 (a)(4). A r epr es ent at i ve of

a c l i enti s “ one havi ng a uthor i ty t o obt ai n pr of es s i onal l egal s ervi ces , or to ac t on ad v ice ren d ere d there to . . . . ” M iss. R . E v id. 50 2 (a)(2). ¶ 6 1
. A co m m u n ica tio n is no t co n fid e n tial if it is m a d e in th e p re s e n c e o f a th ir d p a rty “unl es s i tcompl i es w i th the s t at ementi n R ul e 502( a) ( 5)
. ” M i s s . R . E vi d. 502 cmt
. U nder R u le 5 0 2 (a)(5) , “[ a] com m un i cat i on i s c o n fide n tia l if n o t i nt ended to b e d iscl o sed to third per s ons otherthan thos e t o w hom di s cl os ur e i s m ade i n further ance of the r endi t i on of pr of es s i onal l egal s ervi ces t o the cl i entorthos e r eas onabl y nece s s ary f orthe tr ans m i s s i on of th e c o m m u n ic a tio n .” M iss . R . E v id . 5 0 2 (a )(5 ) (e m p h a sis ad d e d ). T h e inte n t of th e c lien t is “i nf err ed f r om the part i cul arci r cumst ance s . ” M i s s . R . E vi d. 502 cmt
. Fur therm or e, “[ t ] he

### 27

p r i v i l e g e ma y b e c l a i me d b y . . . th e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a d e c e a s e d c l i e n t . ” M i s s . R. E v id. 50 2 (c). ¶62. D r . G ui l d ar gues the tr i al court s houl d hav e al l ow ed hi s couns el t o depos e H err i ng,
s i nc e H e rr i ng w a s i nv ol ve d i n i mpl e ment i ng D r . G ui l d’ s di s c ha r ge pl a n. Further m or e, H err i ng i ni t i al l y r ef

err ed H ancoc k t o D r . G ui l d. D r . G ui l d a l s o s t at es thathe w as barr ed f r om
re c e iv in g re le v a n t d o c u m e n ts fr o m H e rr in g . ¶6 3. D r . G ui l d a r gu e s tha tthe a t t orne y- c l i e ntpr i vi l e ge s ho ul d n ota pp l y t o unpr i vi l eged
comm uni cat i ons ordocument s . A ddi t i onal l y, D r . G ui l d st at es he shoul d have be en al l ow ed t o ques t i on H err i ng aboutthe f ol l ow i ng: 1) c om m uni cat i ons betw een D r . G ui l d and H err i ng; 2) comm uni cat i ons betw een H err i ng and H ancoc k’ s par ent s ; 3) comm uni cat i on s betw een H err i ng and H ancoc k i n D r . G ui l d’ s pr es ence ; 4) obs ervat i ons of H ancoc k’ s be havi or ; a nd 5) obs ervat i ons of

the i nt er act i on of

H ancoc k w i th herf

ami l y. ¶64
. D r. G uil d cit es Hew es v. L an gs ton in su p p o rt o f h is a rg u m e n t th a t th e c o u rt sh o u ld h a v e a t le a s t a llo w e d a li m ite d d e p o s itio n . Hew es , 853 So. 2d 1237 ( M i s s . 2003)
. I n H ew es , th e p lain tiff re q u e ste d th a t th e trial c o u rt c o m p e l th e d e fe n d a n t to p ro d u c e c e rta in d o c u m e n ts
w h ic h th e d e fe n d a n t c la im e d w e re p ri v ile g e d
. I d. at1239. A f

t er an i n cam er a r evi ew , t he tr i al courtrul ed thats om e of the document s w er e di s cover abl e w hi l e ot her s w er e pr i vi l eged. I d . O n a ppeal , the def

endantar gued thatal l the document s w er e pr ot ect ed by the att or neyc lie n t p ri v ile g e . I

d . a t 1 2 4 0
. ¶6 5. In Hew es , t hi s C our tnot ed t hatt he at t or ney- cl i entpr i vi l ege “ ‘ r el at es t o a ll i nf or m at i on re g a rd in g th e c lien t re c e iv e d b y th e a tto rn e y in h is p ro fe ss io n a l c a p a c ity a n d in

### 28

the cour s e of

hi s r epr es ent at i on of

the cl i ent . ’ ” I

d . at1244 ( quot i ng B a rn e s v . S ta te , 460 So. 2d 126, 131 ( M i s s . 1984) )
. T he C our tthen conduc t ed a de novo r evi ew t o det erm i ne w hether the document s w er e di s cover abl e, si nce the t r i al cour tt w i ce f ai l ed t o “conduc tan i t em by i t em
re v iew ” a n d p ro v id e a “ s p e c if ic e x p lan a tio n o f th e . . . b a sis fo r c o n c lu d in g w h y c e rta in document s w er e di s cover abl e and w hy cert ai n document s w er e not . ” I d . at1240, 1249- 50. T h e C o u rtstated “ [w ] e reit era te tha t w h en o b jecti o n s to d isco v ery o f sp ec if ic do cu m en ts are
m ade, the tr i al c our ts houl d de al w i th e ach on a n i t em-by- i t em bas i s , c aref ull y consi der i ng
eac h obj ect i on, de ci di ng w hethert o a l l ow di s covery, a nd s t at i ng the rul e of exce pt i on w hi ch pr ovi des the bas i s f

orthe dec i s i on. ” I

d . a t 1 2 5 0
. ¶66. Y oung c orr ect l y c ount er s thatD r . G uil d’s M oti on t o C om pel di d n ot r equest any document s f

r om H err i ng. D r . G ui l d r eques t ed onl y t o depos e H err i ng . Y oung al s o ar gues thatD r . G ui l d f

ai l ed t o demonstr at e t he rel evanc e of H err i ng’ s t es t i m ony orany r es ul t i ng p re ju d ic e fr o m th e d e n ia l o f t h e d e p o s itio n . ¶67. I n hi s of

f erof pr oof , D r . G ui l d pr opos ed thatH err i ng s houl d be al l ow ed t o t es t i f y about H ancoc k’ s s t at e of

m i nd re gar di ng how she w as t r eat ed by herf ami l y and how s he f

el tabout bei ng di s char ged t o herm other ’s hom e. O n appea l , D r . G ui l d al s o r eques t ed thatH err i ng pr ovi de t es t i m ony of

the i nt er act i on betw een H ancoc k and herf am i l y. W het herH err i ng gl eane d H ancoc k’ s s t at e of m i nd f r om herbehavi ororactual st at em ents , such a ct i ons and
s t at ement s ar e pr ot ect ed by the att orney- cl i entpr i vi l ege i f they w er e conf

i dent i al and made in the co n tex t o f H a n co ck ’s l eg al rep rese n tat ion
. O n rem an d , the tri al co u rtsh o u ld inq u ir e i nt o the ci r cumst ance s and s ubs t ance of thes e act i ons , s t at ement s , and i nt er act i ons , i n or der

### 29

t o d e t e r mi n e i f

th e a t t o r n e y - c l i e n tp r i v i l e g e i s a p p l i c a b l e . Th e tr i a l c o u r ts h o u l d u s e th e i t e mb y -i tem ap p roa ch o f He w e s v . L a n gsto n , 8 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ), as a model f or d e te rm in in g w h e th e r t h e s e a c tio n s a n d s ta te m e n ts a re p ri v ile g e d
. ¶ 6 8
. In h is o ffe r o f p ro o f, D r. G u ild ’s c o u n s e l a ls o s tate d th a t h e e x p e c ted H e rrin g to
co n fi rm co n v ersa ti o n s to w h ich D r. G u il d alread y ha d test if ied. C o n v ersa ti o n s b etw ee n D r. G ui l d and H err i ng ( r egar dl es s of H ancoc k’ s pr es ence ) ar e pr ot ect ed underthe att orney- cl i ent pr i vi l ege, s i nce D r . G ui l d w as a ct i ng a s H err i ng’ s r epr es ent at i ve pur s uantt o Rul e 502( a) ( 4)
w hen he tr eat ed H ancoc k. A l though t hes e conver s at i ons ar e pr i vi l eged, t hi s C our tf i nds t hat Y o u n g w aive d the a tt o rn e y -c lien t pri v il eg e d u ri n g the fo ll o w ing cro ss-ex am ination o f D r. G ui l d ( cal l ed by Y oung as an adve r s e w i tnes s ) r egar di ng the di s char ge pl an: Q R i ght
. B utw hatI ’ m s ayi ng i s you don ’tk no w i f you t al ked t o the m otherornot , do you? A Y es , I do. Q Y ou know you di d? A W el l , I know M r . H err i ng di d. Q N o , d o y o u k n o w – w ell , d id y o u tal k to h er? A I do n ’tk n o w that I t alke d to h er. Q Y ou don’ tknow i f M r . H err i ng t al ked t o her , do you? A I k n o w th a t. Q O kay. So you don’ tknow i f he t al ked t o herornot , do you? A I don’ tbel i eve M r . H err i ng w oul d l i e. I t ’ s pos s i bl e, butvery unl i kel y. Q W ha tdid M

r. Herri ngt el lher? A He told herw hatw e dis cus s ed
. Q W h a t w a s th a t? A T he m ai n thi ng w as thats he w as t o be w i th s om ebody as m uch of the tim e , if an y th in g c h a n g e d , let u s k n o w , an d tak e h e r m e d icin e , co m e to the ap po i ntm ents .

. . . . Q W ell , I th o u g h t th e a tt o rne y d id the co n tacti n g o f th e m o ther? A H e di d t oo. I tw as doubl e. Q W ha tdid they tel lher? D o yo u kn ow w ha tthey told h er?

### 30

A I di dn’ thearthe conve r s at i on. ¶6 9
. Y o u n g ’s att o rne y ask ed sp ec ific q u e stion s reg ard ing the co n v ersa ti o n s b etw ee n D r. G u il d an d H erring reg ard ing the d isch arg e p lan a n d it s i m p lem en tat ion
. Y o u n g also ask ed D r. G u il d ab o u t th e su b sta n c e o f H erring ’s co n v ersa ti o n s w ith H an co ck ’s m o ther. T h is C o u rt f i nds i ns truct i ve Ja c ks on Me dic al Clini c f orW om e n, P. A . v. Moo re , 83 6 S o. 2d 76 7 (M i ss. 2 0 0 3 ), i n s u p p o rt o f w a iv e r. ¶70. I n Moo re , the defend ant i ssued a sub po ena duces t ecum t o the pl ai nt i f f’ s f or m er
a tto rn e y . Moo re , 836 So. 2d at768. T he pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a mot i on t o quas h the s ubpoena duc es te c u m , a s s e rt in g th e a tto rn e y -c lie n t p ri v ile g e , a n d th e c o u rt g r a n te d t h e m o tio n . I d . On appea l , the def

endantas s ert ed thatthe pl ai nt i f f had w ai ved the att orney-cl i entpr i vi l ege by
s ta te m e n ts sh e m a d e in a n a ff id a v it a n d d u ri n g a d e p o s itio n . I d . a t 7 7 1 -7 2 . In h e r a ffid a v it and depos i t i on, t he pl ai nt i f f had t es t i f

i ed t o di s cus s i ons she had had w i th herf or m eratt or ney. I d. ¶71. I n i t s anal ys i s of

w ai ver , thi s C our ts t at ed “‘ [ o] nce the cl i enthas ef f ect i vel y w ai ved the pr i vi l ege, the att orney i s compet enta s a w i tnes s r egar di ng m att er s otherw i s e w i thi n the s cope of the pr i vi l ege. ’ ” I

d . at771 ( quot i ng B a rn es v . S tate , 4 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 , 1 3 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 )). T hi s C our tal s o l ooked t o A m erican S tan dard, Inc. v. B en dix Corp . , 80 F. R . D . 706, 708 ( W . D . M o. 1978) and Metr opolitan L i f e Ins urance C o. v. A et

na Cas ualt

y & Suret

y Co. , 249 C onn. 36, 730 A
. 2d 51, 52- 53 ( 1999) , f orthe rul e thatthe att orney- cl i entpr i vi l ege i s w ai ved
w h e n a li tig a n t v o lu n ta ri ly in je c ts a m a te ri a l is s u e in to a c a s e . I d . at773. T hi s C our tquot ed th e f o l l o wi n g f

r o m A e tn a Ca su a lty :

### 31

[E ]xc e p tio n [to th e a tto rn e y -c lien t p riv ileg e ] i s in v o k e d o n ly w h e n th e c o n ten ts of the l egal advi ce i s i nt egr al t o t he out come of t he l egal cl ai m s of

the ac t i on. S u ch is th e c ase w h en a p arty sp ec if icall y p lead s reli an ce o n an att o rne y ’s advi ce a s an el ementof a cl ai m ordef

ens e, vol unt ar i l y tes t i f

i es r egar di ng por t i ons of

the att orney-cl i entcomm uni cat i on, ors peci f i cal l y pl ace s ati s s ue, in s o m e o th e r m a n n e r, t h e a tto rn e y -c lie n t r e la tio n s h ip
. I d. ( quot i ng A e tn a Ca su a lty , 7 3 0 A .2 d a t 5 2 -5 3 ). T h e C o u rt h e ld th e p lain tiff h a d v o lu n tar ily t es t i f i ed aboutotherw i s e pr i vi l eged comm uni cat i ons ; thus s he ef f ect i vel y w ai ved t he p ri v ile g e . I

d. ¶72
. T his C ou rtfi nd s Ja c ks on Me dic al Clini c f orW om e n, P. A . v. Moo re , 836 So. 2d 767 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ), an a lo g o u s to th e fa c ts a t h a n d . Y o u n g ’s a tto rn e y d ire c tly q u e stio n e d D r. G u ild abo ut conve rs at i on s bet w een H err i ng and him sel f and H err i ng and H anco ck’s m other. Y oung’ s couns el vol unt ar i l y el i ci t ed t es t i m ony r egar di ng the s ubs t ance of pri vil eged
c o n v e rsa tio n s a n d in

jec ted a m a ter ial iss u e in to th e c a se . T h e d isc h a rg e p lan a n d its i m pl ement at i on w as a m at er i al i s s ue bef or e the tr i al court . T hi s C our tf i nds a l i m i t ed w ai ver
a s to th e s e n o te d d is c u s s io n s . C f. Centur

y 2 1 D e e p S. Pr op s . , Ltd. v. C ors on , 612 S o. 2d 359, 374 ( M i s s . 1992) (rul i ng thatthe “a t t orney- cl i entpr i vi l ege c an be w ai ved f orl i m i t ed p u rp o s e s ” ). ¶73. O n rem an d , the tri al co u rtsh o u ld allow H erring to testi fy a b o u t con v ersa ti o n s w ith D r. G ui l d thatconce r n t he di s char ge pl an and i t s i m pl ement at i on. H err i ng s houl d al s o be al l ow ed t o t es t i f y aboutconver s at i ons he had w i th H ancoc k’ s m otherthatconce rned the di s char ge pl an a nd i t s i mpl e ment a t i on . The tr i a l c ou r tmay a l l ow f urthe rt e s t i mony a f

t e ra n i t em-byi t em re vi ew o f the t opi c orar ea of pr opos ed t es t i m ony, i ncl udi ng the cont extof s uch

### 32

c o m m u n ica tio n s. T h e c o u rt m a y c o n sid e r a n y o th e r in fo rm a tio n it d e e m s p ru d e n t in o rd e r to det erm i ne w hetherthe comm uni cat i on w as conf i dent i al and w i thi n the s cope of the att or neycl i entr el at i ons hi p. I n l i ne w i th Hew es v. L angston , 85 3 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ), the c o u rt
s houl d cons i dereac h obj ect i on, deci de w hethert o al l ow the di s covery, and st at e t he rul e or
exce pt i on w hi ch pr ovi des the bas i s f orthe dec i s i on. I I I . W he t he r t he C our t Err e d i n D e nyi ng a n I nf e r e nc e I ns t r uc t i on. ¶74. B eca us e thi s C ou rt f i nds that H err i ng i s al l ow ed t o gi ve l i m i t ed t es t i m ony, the i s s ue
o f a n in fe re n c e in stru c tio n is n o w m o o t. CO NC L US I ON ¶75. O n Y oung’ s di r ectappeal , the j ud gm ent i s revers ed and t he ca s e i s r emanded f or f ur therpr ocee di ngs and a ne w tr i al c ons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on, s i nce the j ury i ns truct i ons as
a wh o l e we r e a b s tr a c t . T h e r e ma i n i n g e rr o r s a s s e r t e d o n d i r e c ta p p e a l a r e wi th o u tme r i t . As forthe cross -appeal, the C ou rtaff i rm s t he tr i al cou rt ’s den i al of sum m ary j ud gm ent because the I rr es i s t i bl e I m pul s e D octr i ne i s i nappl i cabl e i n thi s cas e. O n r emand, D r . G ui l d s houl d be al l ow ed t o t ake a l i m i t ed depos i t i on of J i m H err i ng, and t he tr i al courti s i ns truct ed t ake a n i t em-by- i t em appr oach t o an y f ur theri s s ues of

att orney- cl i entpr i vi l ege orw or k pr oduct doctr i ne. ¶76. O N D I R EC T A PPE A L: R EV ER SE D A N D R E M A N D E D . O N C R O SSAPP EAL: AFF I RM ED I N PART AND REVERSED AND REM AND ED I N PART. DI AZ , P . J . , EA S LE Y, GRAVE S AND DI CK I NS ON, J J . , CONCUR. RAN DO LPH, J . , CONC URS I N PART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y S M I T H , C .J ., A N D C A R L S O N , J . W A L L E R , P .J ., NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .

### “Of late wh er e we in struct o ur juries that all in structio ns mu st be co nsid ered as a 6 

### wh ole, w e do no t con sider ab stractness as muchof a v ice, tho ug h w e still do no t regardit a vir tue .” Splai

n v. Hine s , 609 So. 2d 1234, 1241 ( Mis s. 1992).

33 R A N D O L P H , JU S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D D ISS E N T IN G IN PART: ¶77 . I co n cu r w i th the w el l -r easone d M aj ori ty op i nion, but for I ssu e I. r eg ard ing jury instruction s. T h e M ajority rev erse s an d rem an d s the ca se, fi n d ing that “the g iven jury i ns truct i ons w er e al l abs tr act , and w hen r ead i n t ot o, they f ai l ed t o pr es entY oung’ s theory of the cas e. ” (M aj or i ty O pi ni on atpar agr aph 28)
. I r es pect f ul l y di s agr ee, f

i ndi ng no err ori n t he j u ry i n s tru c t i o n s g i v e n , f o rc o l l e c t i v e l y th e y p r o n o u n c e th e a p p l i c a b l e ru l e s o f l a w. ¶ 7 8
. T h e c e n tr a l is s u e a t tria l w a s w h e th e r th e a p p lic a b le s ta n d a rd o f c a re w a s s a tis fi e d , vel
non , r egar di ng D r . G ui l d’ s s ui ci de r i s k as s es s m ent , di s char ge pl an, and comm un i cat i on there o f. T h e p rop ri ety o f th e su ici d e risk a sses sm en t, d isch arg e p lan , a n d D r. G u il d ’s
comm uni cat i on of

s ame w er e m att er s of

di s put ed expertt es t i m ony, w hi ch the j ury w as f r ee t o r e j e c to ra c c e p t . T h e p u rp o s e o f a j u ry i n s tru c t i o n i s t o g i v e th e j u ry th e l a w. ¶79. “I f an i ns truct i on m er el y r el at es a pr i nci pl e of l aw w i thout r el at i ng i t t o an i s s ue i n t he
cas e, i ti s an abs tr acti ns truct i on and s houl d notbe gi ven by the C our t . ” Fr eez e v. T aylor , 257 S o . 2 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 1 (M iss. 1 9 7 2 ). H o w ev er, ev en “d efe cts i n sp ec if ic i n stru cti o n s d o n o t r eq u ir e
r ever s al ‘w he r e a l l i ns truc t i on s t a ke n a s a w ho l e f a i r l y –a l tho ug h n otpe r f e c t l y –a nn ou nce the a p p li ca b le prim ary rules o f l aw . ’” W al lace v. T hornton , 67 2 S o. 2d 7 2 4 , 7 29 (M i ss. 6 1996) ( quot i ng B u rto n v. B a rn e tt , 6 1 5 S o . 2 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 3 (M iss . 19 9 3 )). R ev iew ing the ju ry

### 34

in stru c tio n s a s a w h o le, “ o th e r in stru c tio n s to th e jur y d id p ro v id e the jur y w ith a p p ro p ria te f act s and spec i f

i c s t andar ds
. ” Mc Car t

y v. Kel lum , 6 6 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 8 (M is s . 1 9 9 5 ). See al s o Fr ed’s Stor es v. M & H D r ugs, I nc. , 725 So. 2d 902, 918 ( M i s s . 1998) ( “[ w ] hen r ead a s
a w h o le . . . th e ju ry w a s fa irly in stru c ted in th is c a se .”); B eckwi th v. Shah , 964 So. 2d 552, 5 5 5 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (“w h en rea d in toto w ith the o ther instruc ti o n s, w e fi n d tha t th e jury
w as pr ovi ded w i th appr opr i at e s t andar ds and f act s . ”)
. Fur therm or e, “[ t ] he gr ant i ng of an
a b stra c t in stru c tio n is n o t o rd in a rily c o n sid e re d to b e a re v e rsib le e rro r u n les s it ten d s to
c on f us e a nd mi s l e a d the j ur y. ” Freeze , 2 57 So. 2d at511. I f i nd no conf

us i on i n t he i ns truct i ons gi ven w hi ch w oul d m i s l ead the j ury. ¶80
. Ju ry Instruct i on N o. 5 as m od i fi ed defi nes neg l i gen ce and the st and ard of care for a phys i ci an i n t hi s s t at e, and i s nei therm i s l eadi ng orconf us i ng, s t at i ng: [t ] h e C ou rti nst ruct s the jury thatthe w ord “ne gli gen ce” as used in these i ns truct i ons w i th r egar d t o D r . G ui l d’ s act i ons m eans the doi ng of some act w hi c h a r e as onabl y prudent , m i ni m al l y compet entps ychi atr i s ttr eat i ng a pat i ent s uch as M s . H ancoc k w oul d nothave done underthe s ame ors i m i l ar c irc u m sta n c e s, o r th e fa ilu re to d o so m e a c t w h ich a re a so n a b ly p ru d e n t, m in im a lly c o m p e ten t p sy c h iatris t trea tin g a p a tien t su c h a s M s. H a n c o c k w o u ld have done undert he sa m e orsi m i l arci r cumst ance s . T her ef or e, i f you bel i eve that, du ri ng his care and tr eat m ent of M s. H anco ck, D r. G uil d acted as a r eas onabl y prudent , m i ni m al l y compet entps ychi atr i s tw oul d have a ct ed w hen f ace d w i th t he sa m e orsi m i l arci r cumst ance s , i ti s your duty t o r eturn a ver di ct f orthe def

endant , D r . G ui l d. If y o u b e liev e th a t, du rin g h is c a re a n d tre a tm e n t o f M s. H a n c o c k , D r. G u ild fa iled to a c t as a re a so n a b ly p ru d e n t, m in im a lly c o m p e ten t p sy c h iatris t w o u ld h a v e a c ted w h e n fa c e d w ith th e sa m e o r sim ilar c irc u m sta n c e s, itis y o u r d u ty t o return a ve rdi ctforthe p l ai nti ff s.

### Like wis e, Jur y Ins tr uctions No. 1a , 3, 8, and 9, which wer e c le arly patt er ned on the 7 

### Mis si ss ippiModelJur

y Ins tr uctions , announcetheappl ic abl e pri mary r ule s of law on the preponderanc e of

theevi denc e s tandard, proxim at e cause, and thecons ide rati on of e xpert witn ess testimony. See Mississip pi M od el JuryInstru ction s - Civ il §§ 1.2 8, 1 :38 , 15 :3, 1 5:4 (We st 2007). 35 T h is i n stru cti o n clea rl y “‘a n n o u n ce [s] the a p p li ca b le prim ary rules o f l aw . ’” W al lace , 672 7 So. 2d at729 ( quot i ng B urton , 615 So. 2d at583). T he i ns truct i on fa i r l y st at es t he medi cal
m a lp ra c tic e s ta n d a rd o f c a re p re v io u s ly e s ta b lis h e d b y th is C o u rt . See Bi c kha m v. G r ant , 861 S o . 2 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ); McCar t y v. Mladineo , 636 So. 2d 377, 381 ( M i s s . 1994) (reco m m en d ed jury instruction ). ¶81. Jur y I ns truct i on N o. 6 t i es f act s r egar di ng H ancoc k’ s s ui ci de f ol l ow i ng her rel ease fr o m th e h o s p ita l to th e p ri n c ip le s o f la w in Ju ry In s tru c tio n N o . 5 , s ee Freeze , 257 So. 2d at 5 1 1 , as w ell as in tr o d u cing the leg al princ iple that a p h y sici an is no t th e ins u rer o f a p ati en t’ s
w el l
- bei ng, s t at i ng: [t] h e C o u rt i n stru c ts th e jur y th a t y o u m a y n o t re tu rn a v e rd ict a g a in st D r. G u ild s i m pl y beca us e M s . H ancoc k comm i t t ed s ui ci de af t erbei ng r el eas ed f

r om the hos pit al
. I ns t ead, the bur den of pr oof i s on the pl ai nt i f

f t o pr ove thatthe ps ychi atr i s tw as gui l ty of negl i gence w hi ch caus ed the i nj ury. I n thi s cas e, the pl ai nt i f f m ustp rove b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatD r . G ui l d w as negl i gen ti n hi s tr e a t mento f M s . Hanc oc k a nd tha ts uc h ne gl i ge nc e , i f any, caus ed hers ui ci de. T her ef or e, bef or e t he pl ai nt i f

f i s ent i t l ed t o a ver di cti n any amount w hats oeveragai ns tD r . G ui l d, s he mustpr ove by a pr eponder ance of th e e v id e n c e (1 ) th a t D r. G u ild fa iled to a c t as a re a so n a b ly p ru d e n t, m in im a lly compet entps ychi atr i s tw oul d ha ve act ed w hen f ace d w i th the s ame ors i m i l ar ci rcum st ances, and (2) that su ch fail ure, i f any, proxim at el y cau sed M s. H ancoc k’ s death. R ecogni zi ng t he “c ons i der abl e di s cr et i on” ext ended t o the tr i al courtas t o “the form and
s ubs t ance of

j ury i ns truct i ons [ , ] ” H

ig g in s v . S ta te , 725 So. 2d 220, 223 ( M i s s . 1998) , w hen

### 36

the j ury i ns truct i ons cons i der ed as a w hol e “pr ovi de[ d] the j ury w i th appr opr i at e f act s and
s peci f i c s t andar ds [ , ] ” Mc Ca rty , 6 6 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 8 8 , the re is n o b a sis fo r re v e rsa l. ¶82. E ven as s um i ng ar guendo that so m e jury instruction s w ere ab str ac t, there is no su p p o rt that they “ten d [ed] t o [so] c o n fu se a n d m isl ea d the ju ry[, ] ” a s to c o n sti tute rev ersible e rror. Freeze , 2 5 7 S o . 2 d a t 5 1 1
. See al s o Fr ed’s Stor es , 725 So
. 2d at918 ( “[ w ] e f i nd that these i ns truct i ons w oul d nott end t o conf us e orm i s l ead the j ury, and ther ef or e, w e hol d any err or fo r a b stra c tn e ss to b e h a rm les s.” ); B e c k w ith , 9 6 4 S o . 2 d at 55 5 (“[i ] n rev iew ing all o f th e jury in stru c tio n s, w e d o n o t fin d th a t in stru c tio n s C -7 a n d D -4 a re c o n fu sin g o r m isle a d in g a s to
s ugges tthatt he j ury m i s under s t ood i t s r ol e orthe l aw . ”)
. Y ou ng w as no tpr ohi bi t ed f r om of f er i ng herf

actual theor i es expr es s l y t o the j ury. T her ef or e, a ny s ugges t ed err ors houl d not be dee m ed r ever s i bl e, and the j udgm entent er ed on the j ury ver di cts houl d be af f i r m ed. S M I TH, C. J . , AND CA RL S ON, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.