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 6 - CT - 0 1 8 4 3 - S CT D EM A R IO U SL A T W A N BA N Y A R D a/k/

a L IL M UR RA Y a

/ k / a M UR -M UR
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 07/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. TOM I E T. GR EEN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: RO BE RT B. M c D U FF BR YAN A. S T E VE NS ON AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : L ADONN A C
. HOL L AND DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : RO BERT SHU LER SM I TH NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 09/ 16/ 2010 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. D emar i ous B anyar d w as convi ct ed of capi t al m ur derand s ent ence d t o l i f e i n pr i s on
w i t houtt he pos s i bi l i t y of par ol e. B anyar d appeal ed, cl ai m i ng, am ong othert hi ngs , t hatthe t r i al cour ter r ed w hen i tr ef us ed hi s pr of

f er ed dur es s i ns t ruct i on. Fi ndi ng t hatB anyar d w as
e n t i t l e d t o h a v e a n i n s t ru c t i o n g i v e n th e j u ry wh i c h p r e s e n t e d h i s th e o r y o f th e c a s e , we
re v e rs e a n d re m a n d fo r a n e w tr ia l.R a g sd a le u lti m a tely p lea d e d g u ilty to m a n sla u g h ter an d w a s se n ten c e d to tw e n ty 1 year s i n pr i s on. K ys ert es t i f

i ed t hathe di d notknow t he i dent i t y of t he s peake rbeca us e i tw as dark. 2 

### 2

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2
. D emar i ous Bany a r d a nd D e nn i s Rags da l e w e r e i nd i c t e d by a H i nd s County gr and 1 j ur y f ort he capi t al m ur derof R obi n B al l ar d, a ki l l i ng w hi ch occurr ed dur i ng t he comm i s s i on of a r obbery. B anyard, w ho w as t hi r t een ye ar s ol d atthe t i m e of the cr i m e, f

i l ed a mot i on req u esti n g that h is case b e tran sferred to y o u th c o u rt , w h ich th e tri al co u rtd en ied. B an y ard
s u b s e q u e n tly fi le d a m o tio n to s e v e r, w h ic h th e tr ia l c o u rt g ra n te d
. ¶3. A t t r i al , w i t nes s es t es t i f i ed t hat , on t he ni ght of t he m ur der , a gr oup of t eena ger s w as pl ayi ng bas ketbal l atan apa r t m entcompl ex i n J acks on. A m ong t he pl ayer s w er e ni net eenyear - ol d D enni s R ags dal e and t hi r t een- year - ol d D emar i ous B anyar d. A ccor di ng t o T r aven K ys er , one of

t he otherpl ayer s , s om eone c ame ar ound the cornerand s ai d thatt he “pi zza
m an i s outt her e, l et ’ s go r ob hi m . ” A tthatpoi nt , Ragsda l e w entt o hi s j eep, gota gun, and 2
c a m e b a c k to the g ro u p . K y se r te stifie d th a t R a g sd a le c o c k e d th e g u n a n d th e n to o k th e c lip
o u t, b u t th a t B an y ard d id n o t see h im d o it
. R ag sd ale h an d ed the g u n to B an y ard an d sa id “l et ’ s go r ob t he pi zza m an. ” A tt hatpoi nt , K ys ert est i f i ed, R ags dal e and Banyar d began
w al ki ng up t o t he apa r t m entga t e. W hen as ked i f he thoughtBanyar d c oul d ha ve “c hanged h is m in d if

h e w a n te d to ,” K y s e r r e s p o n d e d , “ N o t r e a lly , n o .” ¶4. A dr i an A ddi s on, a r es i dent of t he apart m ent compl ex, t es t i f i ed t hat he had pul l ed up t o t h e a p a r t me n tg a t e t o l e a v e , a n d th a ta b l a c k Ma l i b u ( t h e p i z z a d e l i v e r y ma n ’ s c a r ) wa s t wo

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U. S. 436, 86 S. Ct . 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)
. 3 

### 3 car s ahea d of

hi m . H e not i ced thatt her e w er e “tw o guys ” s t andi ng on t he dr i ver ’ s s i de of t he M a l i b u . Af

t e ra c o u p l e o f

s e c o n d s , Ad d i s o n h e a r d a g u n s h o t , a n d th e n wi t n e s s e d th e “ two guys ” run pasthi s vehi cl e back i nt o t he apa r t m entcompl ex. W hen the bl ack M al i bu di d not pul l outof

t he compl ex, A ddi s on began bl ow i ng hi s horn. A f t er t he M al i bu s t i l l di d not
mo v e , Ad d i s o n g o to u to f h i s c a rt o i n v e s t i g a t e . W h e n h e g o tt o th e d r i v e r ’ s s i d e wi n d o w, he s aw t hatt he dr i ver , l at eri dent i f i ed as R obi n B al l ar d, had bee n s hoti n t he nec k. H e put t he ca ri n park s o t hati tw oul d notr ol l i nt o the s t r eetand yel l ed fors om eone t o cal l an ambul ance . ¶5. K entD ani el s , one o f t he f i r s tdet ect i ves on t he sc ene, t es t i f i ed t hathe ar r i ved att he W estw ick A p artm en ts a li tt le after 6 p
. m . the n igh t of th e m u rde r. H e w as a b le t o iden ti fy t he vi ct i m as t w enty- f

i ve- year - ol d R obi n B al l ar d. A s D ani el s w as t al ki ng t o t he w i t nes s es
an d b eg inn ing to es tablish a su sp ec t l ist , o n e o f the o ther d etec ti v es g o t a ca ll from B an y ard ’s
m ot her , w ho s ai d t hatB anyar d w ant ed t o turn hi m s el f i n. D ani el s i nt ervi ew ed B anyar d t hat
sam e even i ng , w i t h h i s m otherp res ent. A ft er w ai ving his Mir anda r i ght s , B anyar d m ade 3
a s t at ement , i m pl i cat i ng hi m s el f and R ags dal e i n t he s hoot i ng. ¶ 6
. B a n y a rd to o k th e sta n d in h is o w n d e fe n se . H e tes tified th a t h e w a s g e tti n g re a d y to t a k e h i s y o u n g e rc o u s i n h o me a f t e rth e b a s k e tb a l l g a me w h e n Rag s d a l e c a me u p t o h i m, handed hi m t he gun, and s ai d “l et ’ s go r ob t he pi zza m an. ” B anyar d t es t i f i ed t hathe di d not
w antt o r ob t he pi zza m an, b ut thatR ags dal e w as l ooki ng “s er i ous and mean, ” and thatheBanyard’s proffered jury instruct ion D-13 read: 4 Th e C ourt ins tru cts thejur y th at in o rde r f

or d uress to be a def

en se to a cri minal ch arg e, theim

pe llingdang er m

us t bepre sent, immine nt, an d impen ding, an d s uc h a nature as to induce in a person well-grounded apprehens ion of de ath o r s erious bodily harm if the act is notdone and that the dang ert o th e de fendant must be co ntinu ou s. If yo u find

f rom th e ev ide nc e that D em ari ou s Bany ard a cte d un de r c oe rcion and duress and the coercion and dur ess was creat edb y Dennis Ragsdale and that the coercion and dur ess was present , imminent, and impending and induced Demarious 

### 4 w as s car ed of

hi m . Banyar d t es t i f

i ed t hathe ha d metRagsda l e bef or e, a nd t hatR ags dal e had “j um ped on [ hi m ] ” t he f i r s tt i m e t hey had m et . A l t hough Ragsda l e had t ol d Banyar d thatt he g u n w a s u n lo a d e d , B a n y a rd tes tified th a t h e w a s s till sc a re d , b e c a u se h e th o u g h t R a g sd a le
w oul d “putt he bul l et s i n t he gun and s hoot[ hi m ] ” i f he di dn’ tgo. T hey bega n w al ki ng t ow ar d t he apa r t m entgat e, w i t h R ags dal e w al ki ng “r eal cl os e” t o B anyar d t he ent i r e t i m e,
s ayi ng “go [ a] head, come on. ” W hen as ked w hy he di d notrun a s they w er e gett i ng cl os er t o t he ca r , B anyar d agai n r es ponded thathe thoughtR ags dal e w oul d “ca t ch me, putt he bul l et i n and s hootm e. ” ¶ 7
. W h e n th e y re a c h e d th e M a lib u , R a g sd a le w e n t a ro u n d to th e p a ss e n g e r sid e a n d to ld B a n y a rd to g o to th e d ri v e r’ s sid e . R a g s d a le to ld B a lla rd to “ g iv e [h im th e ] m o n e y .” Ba n y a r d t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e “ g u e s s e d [ Ra g s d a l e ] c o u l d n ’ tge tt h e mo n e y ” b e c a u s e h e “ c a me back a r ound” t o t he dr i ver ’ s s i de. A s B anyar d w as handi ng R ags dal e the gun, hi s f i nger

“ tap p e d th e th in g a n d it w e n t o ff.” A t th a t p o in t, R a g sd a le s tar ted lau g h in g a n d ra n o ff w ith t he gun, and B anyar d f

ol l ow ed. ¶8. A tt he cl os e of

t he evi dence , def

ens e couns el prof

f er ed a du res s i ns t ruct i on, w hi ch 4Bany ard [’ s] ap pre he ns ion o f de ath o r s eri ou s bo dily inj ury

if h e did n ot c om

ply wi th Dennis Rags dale’ s w ish es a nd that such apprehension was continuous throughout the commission by him of the criminal ac t, then you should find Dem arious Banyard not guilty o f c ap ita l m

urder. If yo u f ind Demari ou s Bany ard

not guilty of

cap ital m urder, then y ou

m aypro cee d wi th y our de lib eratio ns to deci dewh eth er h e is guilty o f man sla ughte r. If yo u f ind from theev ide nc e th at Rob in B all ard wa s kil led

by theact , p roc ure m ent, or culpable negligence of Demarious Banyard and withoutauthor ity of law, then you sh ould f ind him guilty o f man sla

ughte r.


### 5 t he tr i al j udge deni ed as an “i m pr opers t at ementof l aw . ” T he r ecor d i s uncl earas t o w hat par tof t he i ns t ruct i on t he tr i al j ud ge deem ed t o be i ncorr ect . T he tr i al j udge then r ef us ed def ens e couns el ’ s r eques tt o s ubm i tanotherdures s i nst ruct i on, s t at i ng: “N o m a’ am. Y ou
can ar gue t hatbutw e’ l l nothave a cas e of l aw . Y ou w antt o putt hati nt o i ns t ruct i ons w hat yourar gum ent s ar e goi ng t o be and the courti s notgoi ng t o j us tputi n yourar gum ent s . ” The t r i al j udge opi ned thatt he l es s er - i ncl uded- of f ens e i ns t ruct i on of s i m pl e murde rcover ed the dur es s t heory, beca us e s he l at ers t at ed: T he l es s eri ncl uded i ns t ruct i on of m ur deri ncl udes t hos e ar gum ent s t hatt he def ens e w ant s t o m ake r egar di ng dur es s . B uti tdoe s note nt i t l e t hi s def endant t o a dur es s i ns t ruct i on be caus e t he cour tha s a l l ow ed t he l es s eri ncluded of f ens e of m ur der
. . . . Y ou d on ’ tt o geta tw o- f er[ s i c]
. I al l ow ed the l es s er i ncl uded of

f ens e and underthe s t atut e you ca n ar gue dur es s , you can a r gue acc i dent , you can ar gue mi s f or tune and a nythi ng el s e you w antt o ar gue. B ut I’m n o t g o in g to g iv e a n in stru c tio n o n th a t b e c a u se th a t’s a lre a d y in c lu d e d in the d efe n se o f th e lesse r i n clud ed o ffen se o f m u rde r. ¶9. T he j ur y f

ound B anyar d gui l ty of

c api t al murde r . B anyar d appea l ed, ar gui ng that the tr ial co u rterred w h en i t (1) refu sed an y i n stru cti o n w ith th e lesser o ffen se o f m an slau g h ter;Banyard filed a motion for reheari ng and raised an addi tional Eighth-Amendm ent argument 5 no t raise d at trialor in theiniti al ap pe al. Th e Mi ssi ssipp i Y outh Jus tic e P roj ect , jo ine d b y s ev eral oth er o rganiz ati on s, req

ue ste d pe rmiss ion

to fi le an amicu s bri ef

, rai sin g sev eral additi on al i ssu es, wh ich theCo urt

of Appe als grante d. Af

ter addition al b rie fingon

reh earing , th e C ourt of

Appe als denied Banyard’s motion. You ng v. Gu ild, 7 So. 3d 251, 259 (Miss. 2009) ( quoting Sp lai n v . Hi ne s , 609 So. 2d 1234, 6 12 39 (Mi ss. 19 92 )). Id. at 259. 7 

### 6 (2 ) re fu se d d e fe n se c o u n se l’s d u re ss in stru c tio n ; an d (3 ) re fu se d to a p p o in t a p sy c h iatris t to aid in h is d efe n se. W e ass ign ed the c ase to the C o u rto f A p p ea ls, w h ich a ffi rm ed B an y ard ’s
c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e , an d w e g ra n ted c e rtio ra ri. See B a ny a rdv S ta te , 2009 W L 596013 5 (M iss. C t. A p p . M ar. 10 , 2 0 0 9 ). ¶10. W hil e B any ar d r ai s es f ouri s s ues on cert i or ar i , w e f i nd the den i al of t he du res s instruction d ispo sit ive. W e a lso a d d ress B an y a rd ’s c lai m that the tri al co u rt “uncons t i tut i onal l y s hi f t ed the bur den of

pr oof ” w hen i tga ve a j ury i ns t ruct i on thatr equi r ed t he j ur y t o “unani m ous l y f i nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubt tha t th e d e fe n d a n t is n o t g u ilty ” in
or dert o r etur n a ver di ctof notgui l t y. A N A L Y S IS I . W he t he r t he t r i al c our t i m pr ope r l y de ni e d Banya r d’ s pr of f e r e d dur e s s i ns t r uc t i on. ¶11. “O n appel l at e r evi ew of t he tr i al cour t ’ s gr antordeni al of a pr opos ed j ury i ns t ruct i on,
o u r prim ary co n ce rn is that ‘th e jury w as fa ir ly instru cted an d that ea ch p arty’s pr oof
- gr ounded theory of

the ca s e w as pl ace d bef or e i t . ’ ” “W e as k w hetherthe i ns t ruct i on

6
a t issu e c o n tain e d a c o rre c t sta tem e n t o f la w a n d w a s w a rra n ted b y th e e v id e n c e .” “ W h ile 7Id. 8 El lisv. St ate , 778 So. 2d 114, 118 (Mi ss. 2000) (ci ting Gi lesv. St ate , 650 So. 2d 846, 854 9 (Miss. 1995) ). Wa lker v. St

ate , 9 13 So . 2 d 1 98 , 2 35 (Mi ss. 20 05 ). 10 Wes t v . S tat e , 725 So. 2d 872, 888 (Miss. 1998), ov erruled o n o the r g ro un dsby Jackson 11 v. St ate , 860 So. 2d 653 (Miss. 2003). Wes t, 725 So. 2d at 891 (Miss . 1998). 12 

### 7 a p a rty is e n tit led to ju ry in stru c tio n s th a t p re se n t h is th e o ry o f th e c a se , this e n tit lem e n t is l i m i t ed; t he tr i al cour tm ay r ef us e an i ns t ruct i on w hi ch i ncorr ect l y st at es the l aw , i s cover ed fa ir ly e ls e w h e re in th e in s tru c tio n s , o r i s w ith o u t f o u n d a tio n in th e e v id e n c e .” 8 ¶12. “A def

endant i s ent i t l ed t o have i ns t ruct i ons on hi s t heory of t he cas e pr es ent ed, even t hough t he evi dence t hats uppor t s i ti s w eak, i ncons i s t ent , orof doubt f ul cr edi bi l i t y. ” “I f

t he 9 def endantpr es ent s s uf

f i ci entevi dence i n t he r ecor d t o s uppor thi s theor y of t he case , he
s houl d t hen be gi ven an i ns t ruct i on on hi s t heory of t he ca s e. T her e needs [ s i c] notbe eve n a pl aus i bl e expl anat i on. ” “A cr i m i nal def endanti s ent i t l ed t o have hi s j ury i ns t ruct ed on 10
a ll o ff e n s e s o f w h ic h a n e v id e n tia ry b a s is e x is ts in th e re c o rd , e v e n w h e re th e e v id e n c e . . . . a ri s e s o n ly in th e d e fe n d a n t’ s o w n te s tim o n y .” 11 ¶13. T hi s Courtha s hel d t hat “w her e a per s on r eas onabl y be l i eves thathe i s i n da ngerof p h y s ic a l h a rm h e m a y b e e x c u s e d fo r s o m e c o n d u c t w h ic h o rd in a ri ly w o u ld b e c ri m in a l.” 12 W e h av e a p p rov ing ly cited th e fo u r-pa rttestfor d u ress se t f o rth b y the F if

th C ir cu itC o u rt of A pp eal s:Ru ffi n , 992 So. 2d at 1177 (cit ing Wes t, 725 So. 2 d at8 90 n.7) (cit ing Un ited S tat es v . 13 Har per, 802 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir.1986))
. See, e.g., Redd

ix v . S tat e , 731 So. 2d 5 91 , 5 95 (Mi ss. 19 99 ) (r ev ers ingwh ere“th e jury 14 co uld no t haveacq

uitted Re ddix b ase d u

po n self defense becaus e it wa s n ot inf

ormed of any law pe rmittingthe m

to do s o” ). Ba nyard v

. S tat e , 2009 WL 596013, at *4 ( Miss. Ct. App. 2009). Se e Miss. Code Ann. § 15 97-3-27 (Rev. 2006) ( “T he kil ling of a human being without malice, by the act, pr ocurement, or culpable negligence of another, whil e such other i s engaged in the perpetration of any felony, except those f elo nie s enum era ted

in S ection 97 -3- 19( 2) (e ) an d ( f) , o r whil e suchoth er i s attem ptingto co mmit any felo nybe sid es s uc h a s are ab ov e en umerated an d e xc ep ted , s ha ll b e m an sla ughter.” ) (em ph asi s adde d). 

### 8 ( 1) t he def

endantw as underan unl aw f ul and pr es ent , i m m i nent , and i m pendi ng t hr eatof

s uch a na tur e as t o i nduce a w el l
- gr ounded appr ehens i on o f d e a th o r s e rio u s b o d ily in ju ry ; (2 ) th a t h e h a d n o t re c k les sly o r n e g lig e n tly pl ace d hi m s el f

i n t he s i tuat i on; ( 3) t hathe had no r eas onabl e l egal al t ernat i ve to v io latin g th e law ; (4 ) th a t a d ire c t ca u sa l re la tio n sh ip m a y b e re a so n a b ly a n t i c i p a t e d b e t we e n t h e c r i mi n a l a c t i o n a n d th e a v o i d a n c e o f h a r m. 13 ¶14. B anyar d’ s t heory of t he cas e i s t hat he par t i ci pat ed i n t he r obbery under dur es s ( thus lack ing the n ec essa ry sp ec if ic i n tent), an d th at B all ard w as a cc iden tal ly sh o t w h en B an y ard
w a s h a n d in g R a g sd a le th e g u n . H e c laim s th a t su ffic ien t ev id e n c e w a s p re se n ted a t trial to supp ortt his t heo ry. T hu s, B any ard ar gu es, the tr i al cou rterr ed w hen i tref used h i s duress instruction , b ec au se th e re fusa l effecti v ely d isal low ed the ju ry fro m co n side ri n g B an y ard ’s t heory of t he ca s e. 14 ¶15. T he C our t of A ppeal s agr eed w i t h t he t r i al j udge’ s rul i ng t hat t he proff ered du res s i ns t ruct i on w as a n i ncorr ects t at ementof l aw beca us e i ti ncl uded a mans l aught eri ns t ruct i on. T he C ou rtof A pp eal s r easone d that , becau se B any ard had kil l ed B al l ard duri ng the co urse of a r obbery, he w as notent i t l ed t o a mansl aught eri ns t ruct i on. 15Ba nyard, 2 0 0 9 WL5 9 6 0 1 3 , at* 4. 16

### Ellis v. S

tate , 778 So. 2d 114, 118 (Mi ss. 2000) (citi ng Gi lesv. St ate , 650 So. 2d 846, 854 17 (Mi ss. 19 95 )) ( em

ph asi s adde d). 

### 9 ¶16
. T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls al so h el d that t here w as no evi den t i ary ba sis t o su p p o rt B anyar d’ s proff

ered dur es s i ns t ruct i on. Speci f i cal l y, the C our tof

A ppeal s not ed that B anyar d had the gun i n hi s hand thr oughoutm uch of t he or deal , and thathe “f ai l ed t o pr es ent
e v id e n c e th a t h e d id n o t h a v e a re a s o n a b le o p p o rt u n ity to a v o id p a rt ic ip a tin g in th e c ri m e ,” t hu s negati ng his du res s cl ai m . W e add res s both f i nd i ng s. 16 W as ther e ev i dent i ar

y s uppor tf

ora dur es s i ns tr uct i on? ¶1 7
. A de fen d an t is en ti tl ed t o ha v e an instruction g iven to the j u ry p rese n ti n g his th eo ry of t he cas e eve n w hen “ t he e vi de nc e t ha ts up po r t s i ti s w e a k, i nc on s i s t e nt , orof doubt f ul
cr edi bi l i t y. ” A f

t era thor ough r evi ew of the re cor d, w e conc l ude thatB anyar d pr es ent ed 17
s uf f i ci entevi dence t o s uppor thi s dur es s theory. T r aven K ys ert es t i f i ed that , i n hi s opi ni on, B an yard cou l d no tchang e hi s m i nd once R agsdale setthe even t s i n m oti on . B an y ard t es t i f i ed cons i s t ent l y t hathe di d notw antt o rob the pi zza m an, butt hatR ags dal e w as l ooki ng “s er i ous and m ean, ” and thathe w as s car ed of hi m . B anyar d t es t i f

i ed thatR ags dal e had “j um ped on hi m ” the f

i r s tt i m e t hey had met
. A l t hough R ags dal e had t ol d B anyar d thatthe g u n w a s u n lo a d e d , B a n y a rd tes tified th a t h e w a s s til l sc a re d , b e c a u se h e th o u g h t R a g sd a le
w o u ld “p u t th e b u ll ets i n the g u n an d sho o t [him ] ” if he didn ’tg o . A s the y w alke d tow ard t he apa r t m entgat e, R agsda l e w al ked “r eal cl os e” t o B anyar d t he ent i r e t i m e, s ayi ng “go [a] h ea d , c o m e o n .” W h e n ask ed w h y h e d id n o t ru n as th ey w ere g ett ing clos er to the ca r,“The killingof a hum anbe ingwi tho ut mali ce, bytheact , p rocurem ent, o r culpa ble 18 negligence of anothe r, while such other is engaged in the pe rpetrat ion of any felony, exc ep t th os e felon iesen um era ted

in S ection 97 -3- 19 (2 ) (e ) a nd (f ) , o r whil e suchoth er is att em ptingto co mmit any felony besides suc h as are above enumerated and e xcepted, shal l be manslaughter.” Mi ss. Code Ann. § 97-3-27 (Rev. 2006) (emphasis added)
. Th e ex cep ted

fe lonies arefo un d in

Se cti on 97 -3- 19 (2) (e) an d (f

): (e) Whe n don e w ith

or w ith out any

desi gn to ef fe ct de ath , byanypers on

eng ag ed in the commission of the cr ime of . . . robbery . . .


### . 10 B anyar d agai n r es ponded thathe thoughtR ags dal e w oul d “ca t ch me, putthe bul l eti n and
s h o o t m e .” ¶18. T he mer i t s of

B anyar d’ s dur es s cl ai m ar e f ora pr oper l y i ns t ruct ed j ury t o w ei gh. T he j ur or s ar e the j ud ges o f the cr edi bi l i t y of the w i t nes s es , notthe appe l l at e court s . W e nee d
o n ly d e c id e w h e th e r B a n y a rd p re se n ted su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to m e e t th e m in im u m th re sh o ld
n e c e ss a ry to req u ire an ins tru c tio n o n h is th e o ry . W e fin d th a t h e d id . T h u s, w e fin d th a t it
w as err ort o deny B anyar d’ s dur es s i ns t ruct i on. W as the pr of

f ered du ress i nstruct i on an i m prop er statem ent of

law beca use i ti nclude d a m ans l aught eropt i on? ¶19. T he C our tof

A ppeal s hel d t hatthe dur es s i ns t ruct i on w as a n i m pr opers t at ementof l aw beca us e i ti ncl uded a mans l aught eri ns t ruct i on, an opt i on t hat , i tr eas oned, B anyar d w as notent i t l ed t o beca us e B al l ar d w as ki l l ed dur i ng a r obbery. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 27 i s a mansl aught ers t atut e w hi ch s peci f i cal l y exce pt s t he ki l l i ng of a n i ndi vi dual dur i ng 18
a r obbery f

r om bei ng m ans l aught er . B utB anyar d’ s theory t hr oughoutthe ent i r e ca s e w as t hat he h ad com m i t t ed t he robbery un der du res s. D uress is a vali d defense form any cri m es,See, e.g., Wil so n v . S tat e , 39 0 S o. 2d

57 5, 57 6 n .1 (Mi ss. 19 80 ) (“ Dures s is a v ali d d ef en se 19 for many crimes including robbery; [h]omicide is an exception.” ) (cit ing Wa tso n v. St ate , 55 So. 2d 441, 443 (Miss. 1951) (“[T]he law w ill excus e a person, when act ing under coer cion or compulsion, for committing most, if not all , crimes, except taki ng the life of an innocentperson.”))
. 

### 11 i ncludi ng r ob bery. T hu s, i f t he j ury f ou nd that B any ard w as i nd eed act i ng und er duress, 19 he coul d notbe f

ound gui l t y of

t he r obbery of

Bal l ar d, one of

the es s ent i al el ement s of t he capi t al
- m ur derchar ge. U pon t hatf i ndi ng, the j ury t hen coul d pr ocee d t o cons i derw hether h e w as p rov en g u il ty o f an y les se r offen ses w h ich th e tri al co u rth ad d eterm ined w ere
s uppor t ed by the r ecor d, w hethert hey be mur der , m ans l aught er , orboth. ¶2 0
. T h u s, be ca u se w e fi n d th at B an y ard pres en ted a su ffi cien t evid en ti ary b asis to su p p o rt
a d u re s s in stru c tio n , the in c lu sio n o f a m a n sla u g h ter in stru c tio n w a s n o t n e c e ss a rily i m pr oper , as he w oul d be ent i t l ed t o i ns t ruct i ons on l es s eroff ens es shoul d the j ury f

i nd t hat h e h a d c o m m itte d th e a rm e d ro b b e ry u n d e r d u re s s . II. W h eth er th e tr ial co u rt u n co n sti tu ti o n a ll y sh if ted th e b u rd en o f p ro o f. ¶21. A l t ho ugh w e f

i nd t hatt he tr i al court ’ s f ai l ur e t o gr antB anyar d’ s pr of f er ed du res s instruction req u ir es re v ersa l, w e b ri efly a d d re ss B a n y ard ’s claim that the tri al co u rt

“ u n c o n stitu tio n a lly sh ifted th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f” w h e n it i n stru c ted th e ju ry th a t i n o rd e r to f i nd t he def

endantnotgui l t y, i thad t o “unani m ous l y fi nd beyond a re as onabl e doubtt hatt he def endanti s notgui l t y . . . . ” The r el evantpar tof J ury Ins t ruct i on 8, the f or m of the ver di ct i ns t ruct i on, s t at ed: T h e C o u rtfurthe r i n stru cts th e Ju ry th at i f you unani m ous l y f i nd beyond a reasonabl e doubt

t ha tt he D e f

e nd a nti s N O T G U I LTY of e i t he r“ Capi t alSee, e.g., Pi ttm an v. St

ate , 2 97 So . 2 d 8 88 , 8 91 (Mi ss. 19 74 ). 20I d. 21 Instruct ion 5 state d: “The law presumes every person char ged with the commission of a 22 crime to be innoc ent. This pres umption places upon the Stat e the burden of proving the Defendant guilty of every material element of the crime with which he is c harg ed
. Be fore you can return a verdict of guil ty, the Stat e must prove to your s atisfacti on beyond a reasonabl e doubt that the Defendant is guilty. The presumption of innocence attends the Defendant throughout the trial and prevails at its c lose unless overcome by evidence which sati sfies the Jury of his gui ltb ey ond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant is not r equired to pr ove his innocenc e.” 

### 12 M u r d e r ” o r“ M u r d e r , ” t h e n th e v e r d i c ts h a l l b e i n th e f o l l o wi n g f

o r m, W RI TT EN ON A SE P ARATE S HEE T OF P APE R: “W e the J ur y [ f

i nd] t he D ef

endantN O T G U I L T Y of Capi t al M ur derA N D t he ju ry fi n d s th e D e fe n d a n t N O T G U IL T Y o f M u rd e r.” ¶2 2. O bvi ou s l y, t hi s i ns t ruc t i on w a s e r r on e ou s . I t i s a xi omat i c t ha t t he bu r de n of pr oof
nevers hi f

t s t o a de f

e nd a ntdu r i ng a c r i m i na l tr i a l , a nd the r e i s no r e qu i r e menttha tt he def endantbe found notgui l t y beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. A s thi s C our ts t at ed i n P itt m an 20
v. S ta te : “[ T ] he pr os ecut i on alw ays h as t he bur den of pr ovi ng t he gui l tof

[ t he] acc us ed b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, ac c u se d n e v e r h a s th e b u rd e n o f sa tisfy in g th e ju ry o f h is in n o c e n c e , o r t o d is p ro v e fa c ts n e c e s s a ry to e s ta b lis h th e o ff e n s e c h a rg e d . . . . ” 21 ¶2 3. T he St at e ar gu e s t ha t t he j ury i ns t ruc t i on s , r e a d a s a w ho l e , pr op e r l y i ns t ruc t ed t he j ur y. Speci f

i cal l y, i tar gues t hatJ ur y I ns t ruct i on 5, a gener al burde n- of
- pr oof i ns t ruct i on, 22 “cur ed” the def

ecti n J ur y I ns t ruct i on 8. W e di s agree. W e have s ai d t hatt he rul e w hi ch
r equr i es t hatal l i ns t ruct i ons s houl d be r ead t ogether“does notcur e an err oneous i ns t ruct i onMcH ale v. Da niel, 2 33 So . 2 d 7 64 , 7 68 (Mi ss. 19 70 ). 23 Id. at 769. 24

### Id. 25 

### 13 i n conf l i ctw i t h a pr operi nst ruct i on on a vi t al i s s ue w her e the pr operi ns t ruct i on does not
m o d if y o r c la ri fy th e e rr o n e o u s in s tru c tio n .” 23 T he gi vi ng of

an err oneous i ns t ruct i on co nt ai ni ng r ever s i bl e err orcannotbe cur ed by the gi vi ng of

a n i ncons i s t enta nd c orr ecti ns t ruct i on . . . . A m at er i al err ori n a n i ns t ruct i on, c om pl et e i n i t s el f , i s notc ur ed by a c orr ectst at ement o f la w in a n o th e r in s tr u c tio n , fo r th e ju ry c a n n o t k n o w w h ich in stru c tio n is corr ectand the courtcannotknow w hi ch i ns t ruct i on i nf l uence d t he j ury. 24 ¶2 4
. T h u s, w e fin d th a t th e p o rt ion of Jury Instruction 8 w h ich re q u ire d th e ju ry to “unani m ous l y f

i nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he def endanti s notgui l t y” w as i m pr oper and coul d nothave be en cur ed by othercorr ect , yetconf l i ct i ng, i ns t ruct i ons , as w e “c annot k n o w w h ic h in s tru c tio n in fl u e n c e d th e ju ry .” 25 CO NC L US I ON ¶25
. W e h o ld th at the tri al c o u rte rred w h en itrefu sed B any ard’ s prof fer ed du res s i ns t ruct i on. W e r ever s e the j udgm ent s of t he H i nds C ount y C i r cui tC our tand t he C our tof A p p e a ls a n d re m a n d th is c a se fo r a n e w trial. ¶ 2 6
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W A LL ER , C . J. , C A R LSO N A N D G R A V ES, P . JJ . , D I C K I N SO N , K I TC H EN S, A N D P IE R C E , JJ . , C O N C U R . R A N D O L P H , J. , C O N C U R S IN P A R T A N D IN RES ULT W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON . CH AND LER, J . , DI S S ENTS W I T H SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D I N P A R T B Y R A N D O L P H , J. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, CO NCU RRI NG I N PART AND I N RESULT:

### 14

¶2 7
. I co n cu r w ith the m ajority ’s co n clus ion o n Issu e II. W ith o u t q u esti o n , the tr ial co u rt
u n c o n stitu tio n a lly sh ifted th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f b y in stru c tin g th e ju ro rs th a t, i n o rd e r to a c q u it B anyar d, t hey mustf

i nd hi m notgui l t y “beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” R egar dl es s of w hen th e iss u e w a s ra ise d , this p lain e rro r re q u ire s re v e rsa l fo r a n e w trial. ¶28. Si nce t hi s cas e m us t be r emanded f or a new t r i al , w e need not deci de w hether ornot dur es s as t o r obbery w as es t abl i s hed. D ur es s m ay be an i s s ue attr i al upon r emand, depende nton t he evi dence adduce d. I do agr ee w i t h J us t i ce C handl er , ba s ed on the evi dence pr es ent l y bef

or e us , t hatB anyar d w as notent i t l ed t o a dur es s i ns t ructi on, butt hat d e ter m in a tio n is irre lev a n t to th e sa m e iss u e o n re trial. A s w e d o n o t k n o w w h a t p ro o f w ill be pr es ent ed, w e ca nnotknow w hatf i ndi ng m ay be appr opr i at e. I n my hum bl e opi ni on, t he
m aj or i t y unnece s s ar i l y addr es s ed dur es s . T her ef or e, I w oul d r ever s e and r emand sol el y on th e c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r, I s s u e II
. CH AN DL E R, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶29
. B ecause I beli ev e that the tri al c o u rtp rop erly refu sed t o g i ve B any ard a du res s i nst ruct i on , I r espect ful l y d i ssent . T his C ou rt ’s l on gst and i ng preceden thas bee n thatdu res s is n o t a d e fe n s e to m u rd e r. See W il so n v. S tate , 3 9 0 S o . 2 d 5 7 5 , 5 7 6 n . 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 ); W a tso n v. S ta te , 2 1 2 M iss
. 7 8 8 , 5 5 S o . 2 d 4 4 1 (1 9 5 1 ); T a y lo r v . S ta te , 158 M i s s . 505, 130 So. 502 ( 1930)
. A ppl i cat i on of t hi s pr i nci pl e l og i cal l y has been a ppl i ed t o capi t al m ur der
c a s e s . See R u

ffin v. S ta te , 9 9 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 5 ( M iss . 2 0 0 8 ); W e st v . S ta te , 725 So. 2d 872 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ) (o v e rru led o n o th e r g ro u n d s); Fu q u a v. S ta te , 938 So. 2d 277 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2 0 0 6 ). A d d itio n a lly , I w ri te to a d d re s s th e m a jo ri ty ’s c o n c e rn a b o u t ju ry in s tru c tio n 8
.

### 15 I. ¶ 3 0
. T h is C o u rt re a d s ju ry in s tru c tio n s a s a w h o le a n d n o t in is o la tio n . W a lk e r v. S ta te , 913 So. 2d 198, 234 ( M i s s . 2005)
. W hen t he i ns t ruct i ons ar e r ead a s a w hol e, “i f t he instruction s fairl y an n o u n ce the law o f th e c ase a n d c rea te n o injusti ce [, ] ” the ap p ell ate c o u rt
w ill f in d n o re v e rs ib le e rr o r. Mo n ta n a v. S ta te , 822 So. 2d 954, 958 ( M i s s . 2002)
. “A def endanti s ent i t l ed t o j ur y i ns t ruct i ons on hi s theory of the ca s e w heneve rther e i s evi dence t hatw oul d s uppor ta j ur y' s f i ndi ng on t hattheory. ” Id
. at962. H ow ever , a tr i al cour tm ay
r ef us e a j ur y i ns t ruct i on w hen i tis an incorr ects t at ementof l aw , f ai r l y cover ed i n other in s tru c tio n s , o r h a s n o fo u n d a tio n in th e e v id e n c e . R u ffin v. S ta te , 992 So. 2d 116 5, 1176 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ); P o o le v . S ta te , 826 So. 2d 1222, 1230 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng Sm ith v. S ta te , 802 So. 2d 82, 88 ( M i s s . 2001))
. R ever s al i s notw arr ant ed w hen i ns t ruct i ons , t aken a s a w hol e, fa ir ly , th o u g h n o t p e rf

e c tly , a n n o u n c e th e la w . Rushing , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d a t 5 3 7
.

II. ¶31. T hi s Courtha s uphe l d a tr i al c our t ’ s r ef us al t o gr antdur ess i nst ruct i on s i n capi t al
m ur dercas es . I n R u

ffin , R uf f i n w as char ged and convi ct ed of r obbery and ca pi t al m ur der
w ith th e u n d e rl y in g fe lo n y o f k id n a p p in g . R u ffin , 9 9 2 S o . 2 d at 11 6 9
. T h e trial co u rt all o w ed a d u ress instruc ti o n for the rob b ery ch arg e b ec au se n o ey ew itn esse s refu ted R u ffi n ’s
c la im o f d u re s s a s to th e ro b b e ry . Id
. at1177. B utt he j ury al s o re cei ved a j ury i ns t ruct i on
s ta tin g th a t d u re s s is n o t a d e fe n s e to c a p ita l m u rd e r. Id
. R uf f i n ar gued thatan addi t i onal dur es s i ns t ruct i on s houl d have be en gi ven f orki dnappi ng – the under l yi ng f el ony i n t he

### 16

capi t al m ur derchar ge agai nsthi m – beca us e the evi dence demonstr at ed thathi s act i ons
re s u lte d fr o m h is fe a r o f b e in g k ille d b y a n o th e r i n d iv id u a l. Id
. ¶32. T hi s C our tdet erm i ned thatR uf f i n fa i l ed t o supporthi s t heory of dur es s w i t h s uf

f i ci ent
e v id e n c e . R u

ffin , 99 2 S o . 2 d a t 1177
. T his C ou rtackn ow l edg ed thatdu res s const i tutes a d e fe n s e to m o s t c ri m e s , s u c h a s k id n a p p in g , w ith h o m ic id e th e e x c e p tio n to th e ru le
. Id
. at 1178 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed). N ot w i ths t andi ng t he ac know l edgmentt hathom i ci de i s an
e x c e p ti o n to a d u ress d efe n se, th e C o u rtan alyz ed the issu e o f du ress a n d w h ethe r R u ffin p ro v e d a “ p re se n t, i m m in e n t, an d im p e n d in g th re a t o f su c h a n a tu re a s to in d u c e a w e llgr ounded appr ehens i on of death ors er i ous bodi l y i nj ury. ” Id
. ( ci t i ng W est , 725 S o. 2d at 890 n. 7)
. T hi s C our tf

ound t hatnotonl y w as t hi s cas e w eake rt han W est , d i s c u s s e d b e l o w, butal s o, no r at i onal j ur orcoul d have f ound t hatR uf

f i n act ed underdure s s , es peci al l y s i nce h e h a d th e o n ly g u n in h is p o s s e s s io n o n m o re th a n o n e o c c a s io n . Id
. A d d it ion all y , the C o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t R u ff

in h a d r e a s o n a b le a lte rn a tiv e s to c o m m ittin g th e c ri m e . Id
. ( ci t i ng W est , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d at 88 7 -90 ). ¶3 3
. T h is C o u rt h as ad d resse d a sim il ar fac t p att ern in an o ther ca p it al m u rde r tr ial w ith all eg ed d u ress c o n tr ibu ti n g to the rob b ery an d su b seq u en t m u rde r, a s in B an y ard ’s ca se. In W est , a d efe n d an t w as c o n v ict ed o f ca p it al m u rde r fo r th e m u rde r of a co n v en ienc e sto re
c le rk in th e c o u rs e o f a ro b b e ry . W est , 725 So. 2d at877. O n appeal , W es tas s ert ed another claim sim il ar to B an y ard ’s: the tria l co u rterred b y refu sing a sim p le m u rde r or a
m a n s la u g h te r i n s tru c tio n w h e re th e a rm e d ro b b e ry o c c u rr e d u n d e r d u re s s . Id
. at887. U nl i ke B anyard , th e tr ia l c o u rt g ra n te d a d u re s s in s tru c tio n to W e s t. Id
. a t 8 9 0 . O n a p p e a l,

### 17

how ever , t hi s C our tf

ound t hat“no r at i onal j ur orcoul d have f ound W es tt o have be en ac t i ng undercomm on- l aw dur es s . ” Id
. at89 0. In ot her w ords, W estw as notent i t l ed t o the duress i ns t ruct i on. T he C our tdet erm i ned t hatW es t ’ s t heory of dur es s w as uns ubs t ant i at ed by the
e v id e n c e . Id
. N ot w i t hs t andi ng the f actt hatW es tr ece i ved the err oneous dur es s i ns t ruct i on on t he r obbery char ge, t hi s C our tf ound t hatW es tw as notent i t l ed t o a dur es s i ns t ruct i on f or t he arm ed r obbery, t he under l yi ng f el ony w hi ch el evat ed the cha r ge of m ur der t o capi t al
m u rd e r. ¶3 4. L i kew i s e, i n Fuqua , t he de f e nd a ntwas c ha r ge d w i t h capi t al m ur der , w i t h t he
u n d e rl y in g f

e lo n y o f s e x u a l b a tte ry , a n d a s e p a ra te a rs o n c h a rg e . Fuqua , 938 So. 2d at280- 81. A gai n, s i m i l art o B anyar d, Fuqua ar gued thatthe tr i al co urterr ed by r ef us i ng t o gr ant
a ju ry in s tru c tio n o n d u re s s . Id
. at283. Fuqua c l ai m ed t hatA l bertPi t t s ki l l ed t he vi ct i m and th re a te n e d F u q u a w ith d e a th if h e to ld a n y o n e a b o u t th e m u r d e r. Id
. at280. T he C our tof A ppeal s af

f i r m ed the tr i al cour t ’ s deni al of the i ns t ruct i on, f

i ndi ng that“[ a] per s on i s not
a u th o riz e d to tak e th e life o f a n o th e r p e rso n at th e co m m a n d o f a th ird p e rso n , w h e th e r h e is i n f earof s uch per s on ornot. . . . ” Id
. at283 ( quot i ng W ilso n v. S ta te , 390 S o. 2d 575, 576 ( M i s s . 1980) )
. A nd as s um i ng t hatFuqua had a val i d poi nt , the C our tof A ppeal s det erm i ned t hat“no evi dence att r i al [ s uppor t ed] a f i ndi ng t hatF uqua' s death or s er i ous bodi l y i nj ury w as i m m i nent , ort hatFuqua w as notnegl i gentby pl aci ng hi m s el f i n s uch a s i tuat i on. ” Id
. ¶35. B anyar d w as not ent i t l ed t o a dur es s i ns t ruct i on on t he under l yi ng f el ony of r obbery, beca us e he t oo f

ai l ed t o pr ovi de any e vi dence thats uppor t ed “pr es ent , i m m i nent, and i m pendi ng t hr eatof

s uch a na tur e as t o i nduce a w el l
- gr ounded appr ehens i on of death or

### 18

s er i ous bodi l y i nj ur y. ” R u ffin , 992 So. 2d at1178 ( ci t i ng W est , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d at 89 0 n . 7 ); Fuqua , 938 So. 2d at283. Si m i l art o R u ffin and W

est , B anyar d had sol e poss es s i on of the gun as he w al ked t ow ar d t he dr i ver ’ s si de of R obi n B al l ar d’ s vehi cl e. R ags dal e, t he al l eged t hr eat ener , ther eaf

t erw entt o t he o

p p o site s i de of

the vi ct i m ’ s vehi cl e f

r om B anyar d. W hen t he vi ct i m di d nothand overh i s m on ey, R agsda l e w entt o the dr i ver ’ s s i de of the ca r , and B anyar d cl ai m s t hatt he gun f i r ed w hen he w as gi vi ng i tt o R ags dal e. ¶36. B anyar d st at ed t hathe had been af r ai d of R ags dal e due t o a pr evi ous al t er cat i on ear l i er in th e y e a r. W h ile B a n y a rd sta ted tha t he fe a re d th a t R a g sd a le w o u ld sh o o t h im , R a g sd a le
neverve rbal l y thr eat ened hi m . I ns t ead, Banyar d de s cr i bed R ags dal e as “ s er i ou s” and “m ean.” Fur t her , t her e w as no evi dence t hatR ags dal e pos s es s ed any otherw eapon. T her ef or e, B anyar d fa i l ed t o prove “any pr es ent , i m m i nent , and i m pendi ng t hr eatof s uch a
n a tu re a s to in d u c e a w e ll- g ro u n d e d a p p re h e n s io n o f d e a th o r s e ri o u s b o d il y in ju ry .” B eca us e B anyar d had pos s es s i on of the onl y know n gun, he had r eas onabl e al t ernat i ve means
o t h e rt h a n s h o o t i n g t h e v i c t i m. III
. ¶ 3 7
. W h ile th e m a

jo rity d e ter m in e d th a t th e iss u e o f d u re ss w a s d isp o sitiv e to th is a p p e a l, i tal s o addr es s ed w hethert he l anguage i n j ury i ns t ruct i on 8 uncons t i tut i onal l y s hi f t ed the b u rde n o f pro o f t o the d efe n d an t. R ea d ing the e n ti re in stru cti o n in co n text c o u p led w ith jury i ns t ruct i ons 5 and 7, i ns t ruct i on 8 di d notshi f tt he bur den of

proof , and t he i ns t ruct i ons , t aken

### The tri aljudgere ad t he instruc ti ons into t

he r ec ord. Her

re ading of instruc ti on 8 26 

### had a fe w minor di ff

er enc es from t

he writte n ins tr

uction c it ed in thi s s eparateopini on. The only notic ea

bledif fe re ncewas that the judge di d not rea d the“ CAPITAL MURDER ,” “ MURDER ,”and “ NOT GUILTY ” he ade rs . Ins tr uctions 5 and 7 were re ad as writte n and ci te d in t his separat e opinion. 19 as a w hol e, adequa t el y i ns t ruct ed t he j ury on t he char ges agai ns tB anyar d. Jury i ns t ruct i on 8 , in its e n tirety , sta ted : 26 CAPI TAL M URD ER

T he C our ti ns t ruct s t he J ury, t hati n or derf oryou t o convi ctthe D ef endantof the cr i m e of

Capi t al M ur der , you m us tuna ni m ous l y f i nd beyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t fro m th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se th a t th e D e fe n d a n t, D emar i ous B anyar d, on ora boutFebruary 24, 2003, w i l f ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y, and f el oni ous l y di d t hen and ther e f el oni ous l y t ake oratt empt t o t ake the per s onal p ro p e rty o f R o b in B a llard , fro m the p re se n c e o f R o b in B a llard , a g a in st th e w ill o f th e sa id R o b in B a llard , b y v io len c e to h is p e rso n o r b y p u tti n g R o b in B a llard , in f

e a r o f im m e d iate in

ju ry to h is p e rso n b y th e e x h ib iti o n o f a d e a d ly w eapon, t o- w i t : a gun. T he comm i s s i on of such of f ens e i s def

i ned as A r m ed R obbery. I f t he j ury fi rs tunani m ous l y f i nds beyond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat D ef endantcomm i t t ed the cr i m e of A r m ed R obbery orA t t em pted A r m ed R obbery, t hen the J ur y m us ta l s o ne xtf i nd, be yond a r eas onabl e doubt , thaton s ai d dat e, w hi l e enga ged i n t he comm i s s i on of the af or es ai d cr i m e of

A r m ed R obbery or[ A ] t t empt ed A r m ed R obbery, t hatt he D ef endantD emar i ous B anyar d, w i l f

ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y and f el on i ou s l y, w i tho uta utho r i ty o f l a w , by any m e a n s o r b y a n y m a n n e r, n o t in n e c e ss a ry se lf-d e fe n se , d id the n an d the re k ill R obi n B al l ar d, a human bei ng. I n the eventthatthe J ur y una ni m ous l y f i nds beyond a r eas onabl e doubt and t o t he exc l us i on of

any r eas onabl e hypothes i s cons i s t entw i t h i nnocenc e, f r om t he evi dence i n t hi s cas e, t hatt he D ef endant , D emar i ous B anyar d, comm i t t ed both the A r m ed R obbery and the K i l l i ng of R obi n B al l ar d, as def i ned i n t hi s i ns t ruct i on, t hen the D ef endanti s G ui l t y of

“C api t al M urder” , a n d th e fo rm o f y o u r v e rd ic t s h o u ld b e in th e fo llo w in g fo rm , W RI T T E N O N A SE PARATE S HEET OF PAPE R
.

### 20 “ W e , th e J u r y , fi n d th e D e fe n d a n t G u ilt y o f C a p it a l M u r d e r .” M URD ER T he C our tfurt heri ns truct s t he Jury t hati f you DO NOT

u n a n im o u sly f i nd t he D ef

endant , D emar i ous B anyar d, i s G ui l t y of C api t al M ur der , you m ay cont i nue yourdel i ber at i ons and det erm i ne w hethert he D ef endanti s gui l t y of the lesse r i n clud ed o ffen se o f “ M u r d e r .” “M urder” i s def

i ned as t he kil l i ng of a hum an bei ng w i t houtt he a u th o rity o f la w b y a n y m e a n s o r in a n y m a n n e r w h e n d o n e w ith d e lib e ra te des i gn t o ef

f ectthe de at h of

t he per s on ki l l ed, orof any human bei ng. T her ef or e, i f you DO NO T unani m ous l y fi nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthat t he D ef endanti s gui l t y of

C api t al M ur der , butyou DO f i nd, beyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t, th a t t h e D e fe n d a n t, D e m a rio u s B a n y a rd , alo n e o r w ith another , on oraboutFebruary 24, 2 00 3, di d unl aw f ul l y and f

el oni ous l y, w i t houtauthor i t y of

l aw and noti n ne ces s ary s el f
- def ens e, ki l l R obi n B al l ar d, a human bei ng, w i t h del i ber at e des i gn t o ef f ectthe dea t h of

R obi n B al l ar d, then the D efe n d an t, D em ariou s B an y ard , is gu il ty o f M u rde r. I n t he eve ntt he J ury u na ni mous l y f i nds beyond a r eas onabl e doubtf r om th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se a n d to th e e x c lu sio n o f a n y re a so n a b le h y p o th e sis cons i s t entw i t h t he i nnocenc e, t hatt he D ef endantcomm i t t ed M ur deras def i ned i n t hi s i ns t ruct i on, t hen and i n thatevent , t he f or m of your ver di ct s h o u ld b e in th e fo llo w in g fo rm , W RI T T E N ON A S E P AR AT E S HE E T OF P AP ER :

“ W e th e J u r y , fi n d th e D e fe n d a n t G u ilt y o f M u r d e r .” NO T GUI LTY T he C our tf

ur t heri ns t ruct s the J ury t hati f you una ni mous l y f

i nd be yond a r eas onabl e doubtthe D ef endant i s NO T GUI LTY of ei t her“C api t al M u r d e r ” o r“ M u r d e r ” , t h e n th e v e r d i c ts h a l l b e i n th e f o l l o wi n g f

o r m, W RI TT EN ON A S EP ARAT E S HEE T OF P AP ER : “W e t he Jury f

i nds [ s i c] t he D ef

endan t N O T G U I L T Y of Ca p i t a l M u r d e r AN D t h e j u r y f i n d s t h e De f

e n d a n t NO T G U I L T Y o f M u r d e r .”

### 21 P LE AS E N OTI F Y T HE B AI LI F F W HEN Y OU HAVE REACH ED YO UR U NAN I M OU S VERDI CT. ¶38. A ti s s ue i s t he l ang uag e o f t he l astp ort i on o f t he i nstruct i on underthe “ NO T GUI LTY ” se cti o n , w h ich in p art st ates: “T h e C o u rtfurthe r i ns tr uct s the Jur y thati f you
u n a n im o u sly fin d

b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t t he D ef endanti s N O T G U I L T Y of ei ther

“ C a p ita l M u rd e r” o r “ M u rd e r” , th e n th e v e rd ic t s h a ll b e in th e fo llo w in g fo rm . . . .” ( E m phas i s added. ) T hi s i ns t ruct i on pr ovi ded t he el ement s f orc api t al murde rand murde rand
c o n tain e d a fo rm o f th e v e rd ict. W ith in th e first p o rtio n o f t h e in stru c tio n p e rta in in g to capi t al m ur der , t he j ur y had the el ement s of arm ed r obbery and murde rand unani m ous l y had to fin d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t an d to th e e x c lu sio n o f a n y re a so n a b le h y p o th e sis
cons i s t entw i t h i nnocenc e, f r om t he evi dence i n t he ca s e, thatB anyar d comm i t t ed both arm ed robbery an d the ki l l i ng of B al l ard. If t he jury d i d n ot f

i nd tha t t h e ev idenc e m ett hese el ement s , t hen the j ur y w as i ns t ruct ed on the el ement s of m ur der
. O nl y i f

t he j ury f

ound that t he evi dence f

ai l ed t o m eetei t hercapi t al m ur derorm ur der , w as the j ury instruc t ed on the f or m of t he “not
- gui l t y” ver dic t . T he i ns t ruct i on cl ear l y s etoutt he opt i ons of pot ent i al fi n d ing s o f eith er c ap it al m u rde r, m u rde r, o r no t gu il ty. T h u s, if the ju ry fo u n d that B an y ard
w as gui l t y of

capi t al m ur der , as i tdi d, then the j ury h ad no need t o cont i nue w i t h t he in stru c tio n . B u t ap a rt fro m th a t, th e in stru c tio n c lea rly sta ted th a t o n ly if t he el ement s f

oreac h
cr i m e w er e metcoul d t he j ur y f i nd the def

endantgui l t y of

capi t al m urder or , al t ernat el y,
m u rde r.

### 22

¶ 3 9
. A d d iti o n a lly , the ju ry h a d in stru c tio n 5 , w h ich e x p lic itly in s tr u c ted th e ju ry th a t a per s on char ged w i t h a cr i m e i s pr es um ed i nnocent , t hatt he St at e has t he bur den of pr ovi ng
a d efe n d an t’ s gu il t o f eac h elem en t o f a cri m e b ey o n d a reaso n ab le do u b t, an d tha t a d e fe n d a n t is n o t re q u ire d to p ro v e h is in n o c e n c e . Ju ry in stru c tio n 5 sta ted : T he l aw pr es um es every per s on char ged w i t h t he comm i s s i on of a cr i m e t o be i nnocent . T hi s pr es um pt i on pl ace s upon t he St at e the bur den of proving the D e fe n d a n t g u ilty o f e v e ry m a te ria l ele m e n t o f th e c rim e w ith w h ich h e is c h a rg e d . B e fo re y o u c a n re tu rn a v e rd ict o f g u ilty , the S tate m u st p ro v e to yours at i s f

act i on beyond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he D ef endanti s gui l t y. T he pr es um pti on of i nnocenc e att ends t he D ef endantt hr oughoutt he tr i al and pr evai l s ati t s cl ose unl es s over come by evi dence w hi ch s at i s f i es the J ury of hi s gui l tbeyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. T he D ef endanti s notr equi r ed t o pr ove h is in n o c e n c e . ¶40. J ur y i ns t ruct i on 7 i ns t ruct ed the j ury on r eas onabl e doubt
. I ts t at ed: T h e C o u rt in stru c ts th e Ju ry tha t a re a so n a b le d o u b t m a y a rise fro m th e w h o le of t he ev i de nc e , t he c on f l i c tof the e vi de nc e , the l a c k o f e vi de nc e , orthe i ns uf f i ci ency of

t he evi dence , but , h ow everi tar i s es , i f i tar i s es , i ti s your s w o rn d u ty to fi n d th e D e fe n d a n t “ N o t G u ilty .” ¶41. B as ed on a cont extual re adi ng of j ury i ns t ruct i on 8 and consi der i ng t he i ns t ruct i ons
as a w hol e, t he j ur y r ece i ved adequa t e i ns t ruct i ons , and the bur den di d nots hi f tt o B anyar d. I V. ¶42. For t he ab ov e re as ons , I r es pect f ul l y di s s ent and w oul d af f i r m t he j udgm ent s of

t he t ri al cou rtand t he C ou rtof A pp eal s. RAN DO LPH, J . , J OI NS T HI S OPI NI ON I N PART.