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 9 - KA- 0 0 9 1 8 - S CT J AM ESEARL BOYD
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 13/ 2009 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J AM ES T. KI TCHE NS, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LOW NDES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : W
. D A N I EL H I N CH CL I FF LESL I E S. LEE 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 : S T E P HANI E BR E L AND W OOD DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: F OR RE S T AL L GOOD 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 : A FFIRM E D - 09/ 23/ 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: B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h is c a se c o m e s b e fo re th e C o u rt o n a p p e a l fro m th e L o w n d e s C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. The j ury c on vi c t e d J a mes Ear l Boyd o f a gg r a va t e d a s s a ul tpu r s ua ntt o M i s s i s s i pp i Code S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -7 , an d th e trial c o u rt se n ten c e d B o y d to a term o f tw e n ty y e a rs. B o y d filed th is t i m el y appea l , and ar gues thatthe t r i al courterr ed i n f ai l i ng t o i ns tructthe j ury that , i n an agg ravat ed-ass aultprosecuti on i tm ustfi nd that the instrum ent used by the de fendan tw as a deadl y w eapon. B eca us e i ti s w el l
- es t abl i s hed thatf ai l ur e t o r ai s e an i s s ue at t ri al pr ocedur al l y bar s r evi ew on appea l , w e af f i r m B oyd’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence .

### Under the fa ct s pre se nte d in the re cord, Unif orm Circ uit and County Court

Rule9.06 1 

### was sati sf ie d to t he e xte nt t

he r ulere quires a he aring, af

te r a me nta l e xam inati on has bee n ord ered, to determin e if the d efend ant is comp etent to standtrial. Prio r to th e start of trial, thetria l c ourt

hel d a hearing and addres se d the res ult s of Boyd’s me nta l e xam inati on. Judge 2 FACTS ¶2
. O n appr oxi m at el y M ar ch 29, 2 00 8, Boyd h a d s omeo ne d r op hi m of f at W anda Sherr od ’s m other ’ s hous e. Sherr od, herm other , gr ands on, and nephe w w er e al l s i t t i ng on the f r ontpor ch of

the home. B oyd t ook a s eatnextt o Sherr od’ s m otherand exc hanged p l e a s a n tr i e s . Bo y d th e n m o v e d t o a s e a tth a twa s c l o s e rt o S h e rr o d a n d h e rg r a n d s o n . As Sherr od gotup t o gethergr ands on s om e j ui ce, B oyd sai d “H ol d up W anda, I gots om ethi ng f o ry o u . ” He t h e n p r o d u c e d a k n i f e a n d c u tS h e rr o d s e v e r a l t i me s . S h e rr o d ’ s s c r e a ms
a l a r me d a n e i g h b o r , wh o n o t i c e d Bo y d s t a b b i n g S h e rr o d
. T h e n e i g h b o rr a n i n s i d e h e rh o me and not i f i ed herhus band. U pon com i ng out s i de, the hus band s aw B oyd s t abbi ng Sher r od. H e yel l ed atB oyd t o s t op and then pus hed B oyd, caus i ng B oyd t o dr op the kni f e. T he hus band ki cked the kni f e aw ay f r om B oyd, af

t erw hi ch B oyd gotup and ca l m l y w al ked
a w a y . T h e n e ig h b o rs c a lle d 9 1 1
. ¶3. O f

f i cerS cottG l as cow spott ed B oyd w al ki ng a f ew bl ocks f

r om the s cene of

the cr i m e. O ffic e r G las c o w n o tic e d B o y d h a d b lo o d o n h is p a n ts a n d th a t h e w a s b lee d in g fro m h is hands
. B oyd t ol d the of

f i cer , “I w as def

endi ng m ys el f

. T hey w er e gett i ng m y m oney. ” B oyd cooper at ed w i th al l of

the of f i cer ’ s i ns truct i ons and s ubs equent l y w as arr es t ed. ¶4. B oyd w as i ndi ct ed on one c ounto f aggravated assaul tf orthe s t abbi ng of W anda S h e rro d . P rio r to trial a n d in re sp o n se to B o y d ’s m o tio n , the trial c o u rt o rd e re d B o y d to
u n d e rg o a m e n tal e x a m in a tio n b y th e M iss iss ip p i S tate H o sp ital a t W h itfield , M iss iss ip p i. 1

### Kit che ns f

ound Boyd com

pet ent and m adean on- the -r ec ord d e t e r mination regarding Boyd’s me nta l st at e: “ I find no indi cati on that you’ re[Boyd] me nta lly il l t o theext ent that you di dn’t under st and right

from wrong in t

his report .” Boyd sc ore d an 18 on the M- FAST. Score s of 6 or more arecons ide re d to ref le ct 2 

### exag geratio n an d malin gerin g. After B oy d’s d isrup tive co nduct, th e trial court againstated o n th e record : 3 

### I think it is a w ell orch estrated p lan byM r. B oy d. I h ave b een ab le to d iscuss withMr. B oy d. He’s giv en answ ers th at were –that sh ow s that h e’s pro perly oriented. T heywere respon sive to the qu estion s, and he’s beenable to p hrase ques ti ons in a we ll[si c] in res ponsi ve to theCourt t hat indi cate d to t

his Court that h e un derstan ds what’s g oin g o n. 3 T he exa m i nat i on s how ed that , w hi l e he appear ed t o have a hi s t ory of m ent al i l l nes s , B oyd
w as abl e t o under s t and the natur e of hi s al l eged ac t i ons and t he di f f er ence betw een r i ghtand
w r ong i n r el at i on t o hi s al l eged a ct i ons. T he t es tf ur therdemonstr at ed thatB oyd had a
reas on able degree of

r at i on al un derst and i ng regar ding t he n ature of l egal pr oceed i ng s agai nst h im . A d d iti o n a lly , the c lin ica l p sy c h o lo g ist n o ted th a t B o y d ’s s c o re o n th e M ill e r-F o re n sic A s s es s m entof

Sym pt om s T es t( M
- FA ST ) , des i gned t o as s es s exagge r at i on of ps ychol ogi cal pr obl ems, r ef

l ect ed exa gger at i on of

ps ychot i c s ym pt om s and mal i nger i ng. T he r es ul t s of 2 B o y d ’s m e n ta l e x a m in a tio n w e re m a d e p a rt o f t h e re c o rd in th is a p p e a l. ¶5
. A t tri al, B o y d i n terrup ted h is att o rne y an d th e v o irdire pro c e e d in g s b y tak in g h is pant s of f and thr ow i ng t hem atthe tr i al j udge. T he tr i al courthad the j ur or s rem oved. B o y d ’s att o rne y m o v ed for a m istri al, w h ich th e tri al co u rtd en ied. A g a in , th e tr ial co u rt
m ade a n on- the- r ecor d s t at ementr egar di ng B oyd’ s act i ons and con cl ud ed t hatB oyd w as in ten tio n a lly a c tin g o u t in o rd e r to c o n v in c e th e ju ry th a t h e w a s m e n ta lly il l. U p o n th e ir 3

### 4

r eturn, the t r i al courtaddr es s ed the j ur or s r egar di ng B oyd’ s act i ons , and al l j ur or s i ndi cat ed th a t th e y c o u ld b e fa ird e s p ite B o y d ’s c o n d u c t. ¶6. T he St at e pr oduced thr ee w i tnes s es att r i al , ot hert han the Sherr od, w ho had s een B oyd
r epea t edl y s t ab S herr od w i t h a kni f e. T he kni f

e B oyd al l egedl y had us ed t o s t ab and c ut S h erro d w as ad m itted into ev iden ce . D etec ti v e T rav is R o b ertson , the in v esti g ati n g o ffi ce r, t es t i f i ed thatthe kni f

e B oyd had us ed t o s t ab and c utSherr od w as a “ ki t chen kni f e” a nd that i tdi d nothave a bl ade guar d, w hi ch had r es ul t ed i n c ut s t o B oyd’ s r i ghthand. T he evi dence fu rt h e r s h o w e d th a t th e k n if e h a d a s e rr a te d e d g e . ¶7. A ddi t i onal l y, the St at e i ntr oduced t es t i m ony f r om D r . T hom as V i ncent , the tr eat i ng gener al s ur geon, w ho t es t i f i ed thathe had r epai r ed s i xt een w ounds locat ed most l y on S h erro d ’s face , n ec k an d arm s. D r. V ince n t’ s t esti m o n y reve aled th at sev era l o f S h erro d ’s
w ounds w er e s ubs t ant i al and m eas ur ed more than f ouri nches i n l ength. D r . V i ncentf ur ther sta ted th a t i f th e w o u n d s o n S h e rro d ’s n e c k h a d b e e n a fe w c e n tim e ter s d e e p e r, B o y d w o u ld h a v e s e v e re d S h e rr o d ’s c a ro tid a rt e ry . ¶8. A f

t er a tw o- day tr i al , the j ury r eturned a ver di ct of “gui l ty. ” U pon r ece i vi ng the pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport , t he t r i al cour tsent ence d B oyd t o a t erm of tw enty year s . B oyd fi le d th is tim e ly a p p e a l. DI S CUS S I ON ¶9. B oyd cl ai m s f

or the f i r s t t i m e on appea l that the tr i al court err ed i n f ai l i ng t o i ns truct the j ury that , i n an aggr avat ed- as s aul tpr os ecut i on, i tm us tfi nd t hatthe i ns trum entus ed by the def endantw as a de adl y w eapon. A ttr i al , B oyd di d notobj ectt o the s t at e’ s i ns truct i onW a lk e r v. S ta te , 913 So. 2d 198, 217 ( M i s s . 2005) 

### . 4H a rr is v . S ta te , 861 So. 2d 1003, 1013 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Cra w fo rdv . S ta te , 787 5 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 4 -4 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 )); s ee al s o Co lb u rn v. S ta te , 431 So
. 2d 1 11 1, 11 14 (M i ss. 1983) ( “B eca us e appe l l antfai l ed t o obj ectt o thi s i ns truct i on attr i al , s uch has notbeen p ro p e rl y p re s e rv e d fo r a p p e lla te re v ie w .” ). U t zv. R unn ing and R ol

ling T r ucking, I

nc. , 32 So. 3d 450, 474 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng 6 Bi c kha m v. G r ant , 8 6 1 S o . 2 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 1 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ))
. Id
. ( quot i ng B eve r l

y E nter. v. R eed , 9 6 1 S o . 2 d 4 0 , 4 3 (M is s . 2 0 0 7 ))
. 7 H a rr is v . S ta te , 861 So. 2d 1003, 1014 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Mo n ta n a v. S ta te , 822 8 S o . 2 d 9 5 4 , 9 5 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ))
. 

### 5 conce rni ng the el ement s of ag gravat ed as s aul t . T he St at e ar gues thatbeca us e B oyd f ai l ed to o b je c t a t tr ia l, th e is s u e w a s n o t p re s e rv e d fo r a p p e a l. ¶10. I t i s w el l
- es t abl i s hed that f ai l ur e t o r ai s e an i s s ue at tr i al pr ocedur al l y bar s r evi ew on
a p p e a l. “ T o p re se rv e a ju ry in stru c tio n iss u e o n a p p e a l, th e d e fe n d a n t m u st m a k e a sp e c ific

4 obj ect i on t o the pr opos ed i ns truct i on t o al l ow the tr i al co urtt o cons i derthe i s s ue. ” B oyd 5 fa iled to o b

jec t t o the S tate ’s in stru c tio n reg a rd in g the ele m e n ts o f ag g ra v a ted as sa u lt at tria l,
nordi d he r ai s e the i s s ue i n hi s m ot i on forj udgm entnot w i ths t andi ng t he ver di ct . T hus , B oyd is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d fr o m ra is in g th is is s u e fo r t h e fi rs t tim e o n a p p e a l. ¶11. N otw i ths t andi ng the pr ocedur al bar , thi s i s s ue i s w i thout m er i t . G eneral l y, “[ j ur y] i ns truct i ons a r e t o be r ead as a w hol e. ” “W hen anal yzi ng j ury i ns truct i ons a s a w hol e, 6

‘ def ect s i n s peci f

i c i ns truct i ons w i l l notm andat e r ever s al w hen al l of the i ns truct i ons , t aken
as a w h o le fair ly – a lth o u g h n o t pe rfectl y – a n n o u n ce the a p p li ca b le prim ary rules o f l aw . ’” 7

“ [I] f th e ins tru c tio n s fa irly an n o u n c e the law o f th e ca se an d c re a te n o in ju stic e , n o re v e rsib le
e rr o r w ill b e fo u n d .” 8

### Ad ditio nally , the lan gu age inthe in dictment pro vid ed, inpertin ent p art: 9 

### [T] hat Jame s EarlBoyd lateof theCounty a for es ai d, on or about the29th day of Marc h, 2008, in theCounty and St at e a for es ai d, di d unlawful ly, wil lf ully, and f el onious ly, purpos ely and knowingly c aus e bodi ly injury t o Wanda Sher rod, a hum an be ing, with a de adly wea pon, t o wit: a knife , wi thout authori ty of

law and not

in nec es sary se lf

defe nse , in viol ation of

MCA § 97- 3-7; contrary t o thefor

m of thest at ute s in suc h ca se s m adeand provide d, and again st the p eace anddig nityof th e State o f Mississip pi. 6 ¶12. I n t he i ns t antcas e, t he St at e – w i thoutopposi t i on fr om B oy d – off er ed i ns truct i on S- 2, w hi ch pr ovi ded the f ol l ow i ng: T he C ou rti nst ruct s the Jury t hat i f y o u fi nd fr om the ev i den ce i n thi s case beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthaton oraboutM ar ch 29, 2008, James E ar l B oyd, d id u n law fu lly , w ill fu lly , felo n io u sly , p u rp o se ly , an d k n o w in g ly c a u se b o d ily inju ry to W an d a S h erro d w ith a kn if e, w ith o u t au tho ri ty of l aw an d no t in nece s s ary s el f

- def ens e, then you s hal l f

i nd the def

endantgui l ty as char ged. I f the S t at e f

ai l s t o pr ove any one orm or e of the above el ement s beyond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t, th e n y o u s h o u ld fi n d th e d e fe n d a n t n o t g u ilty
. 9 T h e sta tu te u n d e r w h ich B o y d w a s c o n v icte d sta tes , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: ( 2) A per s on i s gui l ty of aggr avat ed as s aul ti f

he .
. . (b) att empt s t o caus e or purpos el y orknow i ngl y c aus es bodi l y i nj ury t o a notherw i th a dea dl y w eapon o r o th e r m e a n s lik e ly to p ro d u c e d e a th o r s e ri o u s b o d ily h a rm . . . . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶ 1 3
. A s th e sta tu te r e v e a ls , th e p h ra se “ w ith a d e a d ly w e a p o n o r o th e r m e a n s lik e ly to pr oduce de ath ors er i ous bodi l y harm ” i s a n e s s ent i al e l ementof the s t atut e. A nd al though
no rul e orpr ece dentr equi r es thatan i ns truct i on m i rr orthe exa ctl anguage of a cr i m i nal
s t atut e, w e have hel d t hat “the j ury m us tbe corr ect l y and f ul l y i ns truct ed r egar di ng eac hHu n terv. S ta te , 684 So. 2d 625, 636 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng N e a l v. S ta te , 451 So. 2d 10 7 4 3 , 7 5 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ))
.

N e a l v. S ta te , 15 So. 3d 388, 397 ( M i s s . 2009) ( ci t i ng H a rr is v . S ta te , 861 So. 2d 11 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 1 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ))
. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -7 (2 )( b ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). 12 

### Again, the kni feuse d by Boyd was adm itte d int o evide nce , al ong with a pic ture of 13 

### theknif e a s it was found by Detec tive Roberts on. The appel laterec ord c ontains thepic ture of the kni feand s hows that theknif e ha d a s er

rate d edgeand no bla de guard. I t i s c le ar from the ev iden ce that th e kn ife Bo ydusedto in jure S herro d w as a dead ly w eapo n. See Hu tch in so n v. S ta te , 594 So. 2d 17, 19- 20 ( M i s s . 1992) ( C our tdet erm i ned that 14 th e k n ife u se d b y H u tch in s o n w a s a d e a d ly w e a p o n , an d sta ted “ [W ]e h a v e h e ld in a ss a u lt cas es w hethert he i ns trum ent al i ty of att ack i s a dea dl y w eapon w i thi n the s t atut e i s a ques t i on f orthe j ury, ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) , butthi s rul e i s i n pa r ta f unct i on of

the f actthatther e i s no s uch thi ng as a di r ect ed ver di ctf orthe pr os ecut i on i n a cr i m i nal cas e. ” Fa irc h ild v. S ta te , 4 5 9 S o . 2 d 7 9 3 , 8 0 0 -0 1 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ))
. 

### 7 el ementof

the of f ens e char ged. ” The “ purpos e of j ury i ns truct i ons i s t o t el l the j ury w hat 10 fa c ts th e y h a v e to fi n d a n d w h o h a s th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g o r d is p ro v in g th o s e fa c ts .” 11 ¶1 4
. T h e ju ry in stru cti o n at issue , S -2, d id n o t p rop erly instruct the jury that, in o rde r to
c o n v ict B o y d o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, it m ustf i nd: ( 1) thatthe kn i fe w i th w hi ch B oyd had i njur ed Sherr od i s a “de adl y w eapon, ” or( 2) thatB oyd had ca us ed Sherr od’ s i nj ur i es by “otherm eans ” l i kel y t o pr oduce de ath ors er i ous bodi l y i nj ury. B utw e fi nd , as w e have 12 b efo re, that no fai r-m ind ed an d pro p erly instructed j u ry co u ld fail t o fi n d th at B o y d ’s kn if e
w as a dea dl y w eapo n, and thatB oyd’ s cutt i ng and s t abbi ng Sherr od m ul t i pl e t i m es w as 13 li k ely to p rod u ce seriou s bo d il y i n jury
. In li g h t o f th e o v erw h elm ing ev iden ce th at th e k n if e 14 B o y d u se d to s tab S h e rro d w a s a d e a d ly w e a p o n , w e m a y sa fe ly c o n c lu d e th a t th e sa m e re su lt

### See La nca ster v. State , 200 So. 721, 722 ( Mis s. 1941) and Ko lberg v. Sta te , 829 So. 15 

### 2d 29, 48 ( Mis s. 2002) ( ci ting Co nley v. State , 790 So. 2d 773, 793 ( Mis s. 1983)) (Whe re the C ourt no ted th at an “[E ]rror is harmless if it is clear b eyo nda reasonab le doubt th at it did not c ontribut e t o theverdic t. ). 8 w oul d have be en r eac hed had the St at e i ncl uded the phr as e “a d eadly w eapon” i n t he
e le m e n ts in s tru c tio n . A c c o rd in g ly , th is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t. 15 CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 5
. F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c o u rt . ¶ 1 6
. CO NV I CT I ON OF AGGRAVAT ED AS S AU L T AN D S E NT E NC E OF TW EN TY ( 2 0 ) YE ARS I N T HE CUS TODY OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , A F F I R M E D . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H AND L AM AR, J J . , CO NC UR . KI T C HE N S , J . , D I S S E N T S W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON JO I N E D B Y G R A V E S, P . J. , A N D C H A N D L E R , J.
KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 1 7
. T h e m a

jo ri ty fi n d s th a t ju ry in s tru c tio n S -2 “ d id n o t p ro p e rl y in s tru c t th e ju ry . . . .” M aj
. O p. at¶ 14. Y et , i n t he sa m e par agr aph, the maj or i ty opi nes that“no f ai r - m i nded and pr oper l y i ns tr uct ed j ury c oul d f ai l t o f i nd thatBoyd’s kni f

e w as a dea dl y w eapon . . . . ” Id
. (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). B e c a u se th e tria l c o u rt’s in stru c tio n s fe ll sh o rt o f a p p risin g th e ju ry o f a ll the e ssen ti al elem en ts of the c ri m e o f ag g rav ated assa u lt , thu s fa il ing to p u t be fore the ju rors th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r th e in stru m e n t w ield e d b y th e d e fe n d a n t w a s, in fa c t, a d e a d ly
w e a p o n – a q u e s tio n e n tir e ly w ith in th e ju ry ’s p ro v in c e – I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. ¶18. I n M i s s i s s i ppi , “[ i ] ti s rudi m ent ary thatthe j ury m ustb e ins truct ed r egar di ng the el ement s of

the cr i m e w i th w hi ch the def endanti s char ged. ” Hu n terv. S ta te , 684 So. 2d

### 9

6 2 5 , 6 3 5 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ). See He n de rs o n v. S ta te , 6 6 0 S o . 2d 22 0 , 22 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ); N eal v. S ta te , 4 5 1 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 , 7 5 7 (M is s .1 9 8 4 ), cer t . deni ed , 46 9 U. S. 1 0 9 8 , 1 0 5 S. Ct
. 6 0 7 , 8 3 L. E d. 2d 716 ( 1984)
. T hus , i ti s “‘ f undament al err or ’ t o f

ai l t o i ns tructthe j ury of the es s ent i al el ement s of

a cr i m e. ” R e ddix v. S ta te , 7 3 1 S o . 2 d 5 9 1 , 5 9 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ). See S crew s v. U nited States , 3 2 5 U
. S
. 9 1 , 1 0 7 , 6 5 S
. C t. 1 0 3 1 , 8 9 L
. E d
. 1 4 9 5 (19 4 5 ). ¶1 9. I n R e ddix , t he def endantw a s c on vi c t e d of a gg r a va t e d a s s aul tf

orvi ol at i on of M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -7 (2 )( b ). R e ddix , 7 3 1 S o . 2 d a t 5 9 2 . A t trial, the S tate of f er ed, and the tr i al courtgr ant ed, j ury i ns truct i on S- 1 as i t s el ement s i ns truct i on: T he C ou rti nst ruct s the Jury t hat i f you b el i eve fr om the evidence i n thi s case beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthaton oraboutA ugus t23, 1994, i n J acks on C ounty, M i ssi ss i ppi , the def endantcomm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed as s aul ti n and u p o n th e b o d y o f K e v in B ick h a m w ith a c e rta in d e a d ly w e a p o n , to w it: a sh o tg u n , w ith o u t p ro v o c a tio n , o r w ith o u t th re a t o f g re a t b o d ily h a rm to hi m s el f , then i tw i l l be yours w orn duty t o f i nd the def

endantgui l ty as char ged. I f the St at e h as fai l ed t o m eeti t s bur den of pr oof beyond a r eas onabl e doubt then you s hal l f

i nd the def

endantnotgui l ty. ¶2 0
. N o tably , o n a p p e a l, th e S tate a c k n o w led g e d th a t th e re w a s m e rit to R ed d ix’s cont ent i on thatthe j ury had notbeen a dequat el y i ns truct ed r es pect i ng the el ement s of
a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt. O n th a t a n d o th e r g ro u n d s (th e tria l co u rt’s f a ilu re to g iv e a n a p p ro p ria te
s e l f
- de f e ns e i ns truct i on) , thi s C our tr ever s ed and r emanded. T he R eddi x C o u rt o b se rv e d th a t,
w hen the j ury i s noti ns truct ed as t o the es s ent i al el ement s of aggr avat ed as s aul t , i thas no
w a y to d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e S ta te h a s m e t its b u rd e n o f p ro o f. R e ddix, 731 So. 2d 593. ¶ 2 1
. L ik e w ise , in th is c a se , th e S ta te o ff e re d , a n d th e trial c o u rt g ra n ted , an in a d e q u a te el em ents i nst ruct i on . T hat i nst ruct i on , S -2, i s as f oll ow s:

### 10

T he C ou rti nst ruct s the Ju ry that i f you fi nd fr om the ev i den ce i n thi s case beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthaton oraboutM ar ch 29, 2008, J ames Ear l B oyd, d id u n law fu lly , w ill fu lly , felo n io u sly , p u rp o se ly , an d k n o w in g ly c a u se b o d ily in ju ry to W a n d a S h e rro d w ith a k n ife , w ith o u t au th o rity o f la w a n d n o t in n e c e s s a ry s e lf

-d e fe n s e , th e n y o u s h a ll f in d th e d e fe n d a n t g u ilty a s c h a rg e d
. I f the St at e f

ai l s t o pr ove any one orm ore of the above el ement s beyond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t, th e n y o u s h o u ld fi n d th e d e fe n d a n t n o t g u ilty
. C ons pi cuous by i t s om i s s i on f r om the j ury i ns truct i on i s a cha r act er i zat i on of t he kni f e as a dea dl y w eapon, des pi t e the f actthatthi s el ementof the cr i m e w as pr oper l y pl ed i n the i ndi ctm ent . A nd, as i n R e ddix , the l ow ercourtgave the j ury no otheri ns truct i on thats etout
a ll th e e lem e n ts o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt. ¶2 2
. T h e m ajority c o rre ctl y stat es “tha t fail u re to raise an issue at tri al p roc ed u rall y b ars
r evi ew on appea l
. . . . ” M aj
. O p. at¶ 1. H ow ever , thi s C our thas hel d that“err or s af f ect i ng f undament al ri ght s ar e exc ept i ons t o the rul e thatques t i ons notr ai s ed i n the tr i al courtcannot be r ai s ed f

orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe al
. ” Sm ith v. Sta te , 4 7 7 S o . 2 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 5 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 ). Ad d i t i o n a l l y , we h a v e h e l d th a t“ [ i ] n s tru c t i n g th e j u ry o n e v e ry e l e me n to f th e c h a r g e d c r i me is so b asic to o u r sys tem o f j u sti ce tha t i t sho u ld b e e n forc ed b y rev ersa l i n ev ery ca se w h ere i nadequat e i ns truct i ons ar e gi ven, r egar dl es s of a f ai l ur e t o obj ect. . . attr i al
. ” Shaf f e rv. S ta te , 740 So. 2d 273, 282 ( M i s s . 1998)
. I n A ppr endiv. N

ew Jers ey , 53 0 U. S. 46 6, 12 0 S. C t. 23 4 8 , 1 4 7 L . E d . 2 d 4 3 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ), th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t is i n d i s p u t a b l y e n t i t l e d t o “ a j u r y d e t e r mi n a t i o n th a t[ h e ] i s g u i l ty o f e v e ry e l e me n to f

th e c r i me
w i th w hi ch he i s char ged, beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” A ppr endi , 530 U
. S. at4 77 ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v. G a u din , 5 1 5 U .S . 5 0 6 , 5 1 0 , 1 1 5 S
. C t. 2 3 1 0 , 1 3 2 L
. E d
. 2 d 4 4 4 (19 9 5 ).

### The Re ddix indic tm ent does not, and s hould not , include the se cond option provide d 16 

### bythis portio n of the statute, “or oth er means likely to pro du ce death or serio u s b o dily har m. ” Rathe r, this indic tm ent a ll ege s that theof

fe nding ins tr

ume nt wa s a

dea dly we apon, and brie fly el aborat es that it was a knif e. This is a s uff

ic ie nt de sc ripti on of the injuring ins tr ume nt in thi s c as e, and i s an es se nti alel em ent of t he c ri meas charge d. 11 W her e a j ury i s noti nstruct ed on al l the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e cha r ged, t he d e fe n d a n t is d e n ie d h is fu n d a m e n ta l r ig h t to d u e p ro c e s s . Shaff er , 7 4 0 S o . 2 d a t 2 8 2
. ¶23. M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s s t atut ory l aw on the f el ony of aggr avat ed as s aul ti s f

ound i n Sect i on 97- 3- 7 ( 2) of

the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode of 1972. T hats t atut e pr os cr i bes v ari ous ki nds of conduct
w h ich , if co rre c tly c h a rg e d a n d a d e q u a tely p ro v e n , ca n re su lt i n one ’ s be i ng conv i ct ed of aggr avat ed as s aul t . A propos t o t hi s cas e i s Subse ct i on ( b) of Sect i on 97- 3- 7 ( 2) , w hi ch
m akes i ta s er i ous f

el ony f orone t o att emp tto cause , orpurpos el y orknow i ngl y t o caus e, b o d ily in ju ry to a n o th e r p e rso n w ith a d e a d ly w e a p o n o r o th e r m e a n s lik e ly to p ro d u c e d e a th
o r seriou s b o d il y h arm . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-7 (2)(b ) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶24. T he i ndi ctm enti n t he presentcase con t ai ns all o f t he el em ent s of the cr i m e of aggr avat ed as s aul t , al l egi ng t hatt he acc us ed “.
. . di d unl aw f ul l y, w i l l f

ul l y, and f

el oni ous l y, p u rp o s e ly a n d k n o w in g ly c a u s e b o d ily in ju ry to W a n d a S h e rr o d , a h u m a n b e in g , w i th a d e a d ly w e a

p o n , to w it , a kn if

e. . . . ” T h e m ajority ri g h tl y no tes th at “.
. . th e p h rase , ‘w ith
a deadl y w eapon ormeans l i kel y t o pr oduce death ors er i ous bodi l y ha r m ’ i s an es s ent i al el ementof

the s t atut e, ” meani ng, und ou bt edl y, an es s ent i al el ementof the of f ens e. 16 (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶25
. N otw i thst and i ng the evidence that W and a S herr od suff ered m ult i ple bo dil y inj uri es, b e c a u se th e in d ictm e n t w a s d ra w n p u rsu a n t t o the p o rtio n o f th e a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt statu te

### 12

t hatpr os cr i bes the i nf

l i ct i on of

i nj ury on anotherper s on w ith a d e a d ly w e a p o n , i tw as ind ispe n sab le th at th e jury pa ss o n this m aterial elem en t of th e o ffen se, as c h arg ed
. A jury cannotbe s ai d t o ha ve deci ded s om ethi ng thati tw as noti ns truct ed t o deci de. I f a def endant i s notf ound gui l ty upon pr operi ns truct i ons thatha ve putbe f or e the j ury a ll of

the mat er i al el ement s of

the of f ens e char ged, then w e ca nnots ay thathe ors he has been c onvi ct ed, even in th e fa c e o f a g u ilty v e rd ict. It d o e s n o t su ffic e fo r u s to p ro n o u n c e , a s th e m a jo rity under t akes t o do, that“no f ai rm i nded and pr oper l y i ns truct ed j ury c oul d f ai l t o f i nd t hat B o y d ’s k n ife w a s a d e a d ly w e a p o n .” T h o u g h th is C o u rt is c o n stitu tio n a lly v e ste d w ith
cons i der abl e author i ty, w e do notpos s es s the pow ert o f athom w hata j ury c o u ld have f ound if it h a d b e e n p ro p e rly in s tru c te d
. ¶26
. T his C ou rtcon si st entl y h as hel d thatw hetheran instrum ent i s a dead l y w eapo n is a q u e s tio n o f f

a c t to b e d e te r m in e d b y th e ju ry . D a v is v . S ta te , 53 0 S o. 2d 69 4, 70 2 (M i ss. 1 9 8 8 ); D u c k w o rth v. S ta te , 4 7 7 S o . 2 d 9 3 5 , 9 3 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); J a c kso n v. S ta te , 404 So. 2d 5 4 3 , 5 4 4 (M iss . 1 9 8 1 ); S h a n k lin v . S ta te , 2 9 0 S o . 2 d 6 2 5 , 6 2 7 (M iss . 1 9 7 4 ); Johnson v. S ta te , 2 3 0 S o . 2 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 1 (M iss . 1 9 7 0 ); Co b b v. S ta te , 233 M i s s . 54, 101 S o. 2d 110, 112 (1 9 5 8 ); G o lde n v. S ta te , 2 2 3 M iss . 6 4 9 , 7 8 S o . 2 d 7 8 8 , 7 9 1 (1 9 5 5 ); G ra y v. S ta te , 220 M i ss. 2 2 0 , 7 0 S o . 2 d 5 2 4 , 5 2 5 (1 9 5 4 ); Sm ith v. S ta te , 4 9 S o . 2 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 5 (M iss . 1 9 5 0 ); L ott v. S ta te , 1 3 0 M iss . 1 1 9 , 9 3 S o . 4 8 1 , 4 8 1 -4 8 2 (1 9 2 2 ); S a ffo ld v . S ta te , 76 M i s s . 258, 24 So. 314, 3 1 5 (1 8 9 8 ). ¶27. W hethera thi ng i s a dead l y w eapo n i s no ta qu ery t hati s s us cept i bl e of j udi ci al in terp re tatio n in th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i, un les s w e a re w ill in g a n d r e a d y to o v e rru le w e ll
overa ce ntury o f j ur i s prudence t o the ef f ectthatthi s i s al w ays an i s s ue of f actf or

### 13

d e t e r mi n a t i o n b y th e tr i e ro f f a c t , i n t h i s c a s e , t h e j u ry . Al th o u g h th e t e r m a kn ife m ay have an omi nous r i ng t o i t , and w hi l e w e may, fr om our l of ty per ch on H i gh St r eet , w i s el y opi ne thatno one coul d doubtthatt he kni f e atis sue in t hi s cas e i s a dea dl y w eapon, s uch a d eterm ination is no t w ith in the p rov ince o f j u ri sts, b u t of ju rors. T h e juro rs w h o w ere empanel ed t o deci de the pr es entcas e w er e notg i ven t hatoppor tuni ty, no m att erhow f ervent l y w e may bel i eve thatw e know w hatthey w oul d ha ve deci ded i f onl y they had be en
as ked. N o m att erhow compel l i ng w e may bel i eve the evi dence t o have been, no m att erhow g rap h ic th e p h o to g ra p h s in the rec o rd b efo re u s m ay b e, th e issu e o f w h ethe r th e k n if e al l egedl y w i el ded by B oyd s houl d be c l as s i f i ed as a de adl y w eapon w as , and cont i nues t o be,
a ques t i on of

f actthats houl d ha ve bee n pl ace d bef or e the j ury f

orthe j ury’ s r es ol ut i on, not the tr i al j ud ge’s and n ot ours . ¶ 2 8
. F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, I w o u ld re v e rse a n d re m a n d fo r a n e w trial. GRAVE S , P . J . , AND CHAN DL ER , J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.