Opinion ID: 1853034
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Instruction D-2 was properly refused by the circuit court.

Text: ¶ 22. Instruction D-2, proposed by Strickland, stated: [t]he Court instructs the jury that if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that [Strickland] did not commit the crime of armed robbery on May 10, 2000 at the Penny Ridge Grocery, but instead you find beyond a reasonable doubt that he did feloniously take the personal property of [Wright], to wit her purse, in her presence and off her person and against her will, by violence to her person or by putting her in fear of some immediate injury to her person, you shall find him guilty of the lesser included offense of robbery. (Emphasis added). The State objected to this instruction, stating I don't believe there's any basis in the evidence. The undisputed testimony is that there was a gun that was used, and that there was property that was taken after the display of that weapon. Moreover, the State noted that Strickland is not charged in this indictment with taking [Wright's] purse. The robbery of the purse as I see it as set forth in this instruction is not necessarily a lesser included offense. It is a separate crime. He's charged in the indictment from taking a cash register containing money and beer. Strickland maintained that he did take the purse admittedly and leave with it. . . . Therefore, that is a strong armed robbery. He had no weapon and he never made any threats by her own testimony. He just took her purse and ran with it. Now, it's going to be a jury question as to whether or not he was actually involved in the armed robbery or not. The circuit court refused Instruction D-2, finding that [t]here is no evidence in the record that will justify the granting of a lesser included offense[,] and stating that [b]y [Strickland's] own testimony, he stated that he told [Burnett] to just take it with you. That statement came after the display of the firearm. If a defendant participated in any regard even in the asp[o]r[t]ation of the property . . . it would be armed robbery and cannot be robbery. ¶ 23. Strickland now asserts that: the lower court denied [his] instruction that represented a major part of his defense, a defense that consisted of his involvement in the alleged armed robbery was at wors[t] robbery when he took Wright's purse from the scene and that he had no direct involvement in the actions of Burnett who committed the armed robbery without Strickland's help or consent. Strickland argues that denial of the lesser-included offense instruction constituted reversible error because he was not acting in common purpose with Burnett in the armed robbery[.] The State responds that: [t]aken in the light most favorable to the defense, the evidence shows that a deadly weapon was displayed and that [Strickland] participated in the robbery. As the trial court observed, Strickland's participation in the crime made him a principal, regardless of his protestation that he did not know the armed robbery was to occur. . . . Accordingly, the lesser-included instruction was properly refused. ¶ 24. The standard of review for the grant or denial of jury instructions has been set forth by this Court, as follows: [j]ury instructions are to be read together and taken as a whole with no one instruction taken out of context. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. Chandler v. State, 946 So.2d 355, 360 (Miss.2006) (quoting Ladnier v. State, 878 So.2d 926, 931 (Miss.2004)) (emphasis added). Regarding lesser-included offense instructions, this Court has stated that they: should be given if there is an evidentiary basis in the record that would permit a jury rationally to find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense and to acquit him of the greater offense. Welch v. State, 566 So.2d 680, 684 (Miss.1990). In reviewing the propriety of such an instruction, we have stated: A lesser-included offense instruction should be granted unless the trial judge and ultimately this Court can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the accused and considering all the reasonable inferences which may be drawn in favor of the accused from the evidence, that no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense (conversely, not guilty of at least one element of the principal charge). McGowan v. State, 541 So.2d 1027, 1028 (Miss.1989). However, this Court has repeatedly held that a lesser-included offense instruction should not be indiscriminately granted, but rather should be submitted to the jury only where there is an evidentiary basis in the record. Lee v. State, 469 So.2d 1225, 1230 (Miss.1985). Chandler, 946 So.2d at 360-61 (quoting Sanders v. State, 781 So.2d 114, 119 (Miss. 2001)) (emphasis added). A defendant is entitled to present their theory of the case to the jury as long as there is some evidentiary basis, even if the evidence is insufficient or of doubtful credibility, `and even though the sole testimony in support of the defense is the defendant's own testimony.' Craig v. State, 660 So.2d 1298, 1301 (Miss.1995) (quoting Welch, 566 So.2d at 684). However, a lesser-included offense instruction may not be based purely on speculation or surmise. Wilson v. State, 639 So.2d 1326, 1329 (Miss.1994). ¶25. Participation in an armed robbery is sufficient to make one a principal in the crime regardless of whether that participant was the person holding the weapon. Harrington v. State, 859 So.2d 1054, 1057 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (citing Moore v. State, 493 So.2d 1295-98 (Miss. 1986)). See also Smothers v. State, 761 So.2d 887, 890 (Miss.Ct.App.2000). As the circuit court found, Strickland admitted to instructing Burnett to take the cash box portion of the cash register after the pistol was threateningly displayed toward Wright. Such participation rendered Strickland a principal in the armed robbery. See Harrington, 859 So.2d at 1057. As Strickland admitted to this involvement, there is no evidentiary basis in the record[,] Chandler, 946 So.2d at 360-61 (quoting Sanders, 781 So.2d at 119), for the lesser-included offense instruction. [26] Given the absence of a foundation in the evidence for the lesser-included instruction, Chandler, 946 So.2d at 360, this Court concludes that the circuit court did not err in denying it. As such, this Court finds that this issue is without merit.