Case Name: Eddie Gene BRIGGINS v. STATE of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1982-07-14
Citations: 416 So. 2d 691
Docket Number: No. 53147
Parties: Eddie Gene BRIGGINS v. STATE of Mississippi.
Judges: Before SMITH, P. J., and WALKER and DAN M. LEE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 416
Pages: 691–697

Head Matter:
Eddie Gene BRIGGINS v. STATE of Mississippi.
No. 53147.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
July 14, 1982.
Willie L. Rose, Lexington, Mel Davis, Leonard McClellan, Oxford, for appellant.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Charles W. Maris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before SMITH, P. J., and WALKER and DAN M. LEE, JJ.

Opinion:
WALKER, Justice,
for the Court:
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Lafayette County wherein the appellant, Eddie Gene Briggins, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to serve a term of eighteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
On August 31, 1980, appellant and his wife drove to the Eastview Apartments in Oxford, Mississippi. When a friend informed appellant that the taillights on his car were not working, he asked his wife to go upstairs and borrow some tinfoil to wrap the fuse. Appellant's two sisters-in-law lived in the apartments.
Appellant testified that after his wife went upstairs, he heard the deceased, Edward Junior Houston, the boyfriend of appellant's sister-in-law, cursing at his wife. Appellant told the decedent not to speak to his wife that way, and the decedent then came downstairs and began arguing with appellant. Shortly thereafter appellant and Houston both left in their automobiles. The appellant drove to his house, put his loaded shotgun on the backseat and returned to the apartments to wait for Houston to return.
Appellant testified that when the decedent arrived, he told Houston that he wanted to talk to him and at that time decedent got something from his car. Appellant testified he could not determine what the decedent removed from the car but that he then fired one shot in the air. Houston then yelled at appellant "go ahead and shoot me" and appellant shot and killed him. Photographs taken at the scene showed a hammer lying near the decedent's body. Later that night appellant turned himself in to the Lafayette County sheriff.
Appellant's first assignment of error is that the trial court permitted the introduction of a color photograph of the deceased. This assignment has no merit. The photograph had probative value in that it showed the location of the gunshot wound and therefore should have been admitted. Moreover, in this State the trial judge is granted much discretion to determine the admissibility of photographs, and we find there was no manifest abuse of that discretion.
Appellant's next assignment of error concerns the court's refusal to grant certain instructions dealing with various theories of self-defense. The jury was amply instructed as to the theory of self-defense in Instruction D-10. This instruction clearly stated that if appellant had reasonable grounds to apprehend that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm at the hands of the decedent, the self-defense doctrine would apply. Instructions D-4, S-2 and S-4 all stated that the prosecution must disprove the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt when that issue has been sufficiently raised. Pierce v. State, 289 So.2d 901 (Miss.1974). When read together we find the jury was properly instructed on the doctrine of self-defense.
Appellant's final assignment of error is that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury to consider prior threats made by the decedent against the appellant. Appellant requested the following instructions:
The Court instructs you that in reaching your decision as to whether Mr. Brig-gins had reasonable cause to believe the decedent was about to attempt to inflict great bodily harm upon him at the time of the shooting, you are to consider the previous arguments that occurred earlier that date between the parties, as well as, all threats that the decedent may have made, if any, toward Mr. Briggins. (Emphasis added).
In reaching your decision as to whether Mr. Briggins had reasonable cause to believe the decedent was about to attempt to inflict great bodily injuries against him, the Court instructs you to consider all previous arguments, hostility and difficulties between Mr. Briggins and the deceased. (Emphasis added).
These instructions singled out and gave undue prominence to parts of the testimony and as worded would have amounted to a comment on the weight of the evidence contrary to our well established rule. Ceary v. State, 204 Miss. 299, 37 So.2d 316 (1948). Therefore, the trial judge properly refused both instructions.
For the above reasons, the appellant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
PATTERSON, C. J, SMITH and SUGG, P. JJ., and BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING and DAN M. LEE, JJ., concur.
HAWKINS, J., dissents.
. The question of whether a self-defense instruction was warranted by the evidence was not raised by the State and is not addressed in this opinion.
. This opinion only addresses the admissibility of the two instructions as they are worded.