Opinion ID: 1670140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the trial court err in failing to grant a directed verdict to the defendant or a peremptory instruction on the basis of insufficient evidence?

Text: The effect of this assignment of error is threefold: (1) Smith is arguing that he was entitled to a directed verdict on insufficient evidence; (2) that he was entitled to a peremptory instruction; and (3) that he was entitled to a circumstantial evidence instruction, and that the State had not met the burden of proof for a circumstantial evidence case. There is no merit to his first two claims but the third claim in this assignment has merit. The rule of law in considering motions for directed verdict and requests for peremptory instructions in criminal cases is so clear that it need not be repeated and can be found in Banks v. State, 525 So.2d 399 (Miss. 1988) There is no merit to that assignment. On the assignment of insufficiency of evidence, this Court has held that: ... if there is substantial evidence in the record of such quality and weight that, having in mind the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof standard, reasonable and fairminded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions regarding the guilt of the defendant, we have no authority to disturb the jury's guilty verdict. Fisher v. State, 481 So.2d 203, 214 (Miss. 1985); Burge v. State, 472 So.2d 392 (Miss. 1985); among others. On the third assignment the defendant maintains the evidence against him came primarily from three sources: A. The testimony of Mitchell Collins that he saw the defendant running from an alley near the crime scene with a bag tucked underneath his arm. B. The testimony of Jackie Sanders that Smith told her that he had saved $16,000.00. She also indicated that Smith presented a sum of money in a paper bag and that she counted up to $10,00.00 in the bag. C. When Smith was arrested he had $446.00 on his person and $2600.00 was discovered later in his footlocker. We assume the jury evaluated this evidence in reaching its verdict. Wheeler v. State, 536 So.2d 1347 (Miss. 1988). However, in Fisher v. State, 481 So.2d 203, 214 (Miss. 1985), we held that the State has a stricter burden of proof in circumstantial evidence cases: Because of the wholly circumstantial nature of the State's evidence ... the state was required to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with Fisher's innocence. Had some direct evidence been used in convicting this defendant, we could safely hold that this first assignment of error is without merit but the trial record reveals that Smith's conviction was based entirely upon circumstantial evidence and, hence, the stricter burden of proof applied. The trial judge had before him a circumstantial evidence instruction and rejected that instruction altering it to a direct evidence instruction. Therefore, the case was submitted to the jury without the jury being instructed as to the burden of proof in a case of circumstantial evidence. Fisher v. State, supra. at page 214; Flanagin v. State, 473 So.2d 482 (Miss. 1985); Hester v. State, 463 So.2d 1087 (Miss. 1985). Circumstantial evidence instructions are required when the prosecution is without a confession and without eyewitnesses to the gravamen of the offense charged. Woodward v. State, 533 So.2d 418, 431 (Miss. 1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 1767, 104 L.Ed.2d 202 (1989), rehearing denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 3179, 104 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1989); Williamson v. State, 512 So.2d 868, 880 (Miss. 1987); Keys v. State, 478 So.2d 266 (Miss. 1985). As this trial record is devoid of either a confession by the defendant or of any eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime, the circumstantial evidence instruction had to be given. In Peterson v. State, 518 So.2d 632, 637-638 (Miss. 1987), we said: ... If the instructions submitted by counsel are deficient, the trial judge can and should instruct the jury on his own initiative. Ranier v. State, 473 So.2d 172, 174 (Miss. 1985). In U.S. v. Diaz, 585 F.2d 116 (5th Cir.1978) ... No limiting instruction had been requested by defense counsel and the Fifth Circuit held that the failure to grant such an instruction rose to the level of plain or fundamental error. In the instant case, the trial judge failed to heed the advice of Peterson. The trial judge had before him a circumstantial evidence instruction and in his own hand altered it to turn it into a direct evidence instruction. In doing so he deprived Smith of a substantial right. For failure to grant a circumstantial evidence instruction, on the facts in this record, the conviction and sentence of the defendant should be reversed and the case remanded to the Circuit Court of Humphreys County for a new trial.