Opinion ID: 1101527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: proposed jury instructions d-2, d-3 and d-4.

Text: ¶ 8. Lee argues that the court committed reversible error by refusing to grant the proposed jury instructions D-2, D-3, and D-4, all of which embodied the lesser offense of manslaughter. Lee contends the facts in this case do not rise to the level of murder but more accurately support a conviction for manslaughter. Lee asserts that his mental capacity at the time the act was committed was a substantial factor. Lee argues his mental capacity was relevant and that the trial court should have granted the proposed jury instructions D-2, D-3, and D-4. ¶ 9. Prior to considering these instructions, the trial court had granted Instruction S-3, set out below: The Court instructs the Jury if the State has failed to prove all of the essential elements of the crime of murder, you may consider the lesser charge of manslaughter. However, it is your duty to accept the law given to you by the Court and, if the facts and law warrant a conviction for the crime of murder, then it is your duty to make such a finding uninfluenced by your power to find a lesser offense. This provision is not designed to prevent a failure of justice if the evidence fails to prove the original charge but does justify a verdict for the lesser crime. If you find that the State has failed to prove any one or more of the essential elements of the crime of murder, you will proceed with your deliberations to decide whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the essential elements of the crime of manslaughter. Therefore, should you find from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1. On or about the 1st day of August, 2000 in Wayne County, Mississippi; 2. The Defendant, Christopher M. Lee, did wilfully, unlawfully and purposely cause the death of Anice Smith, in the heat of passion, during an argument or within such time after an argument that passions had not had time to cool by stabbing, cutting and slashing her with a knife; then it is your sworn duty to find the Defendant guilty of manslaughter. Should the State fail to prove any one or more of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find the Defendant not guilty of manslaughter. ¶ 10. Instruction D-2 is reprinted as follows: The Court instructs the Jury that if you find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that Christopher Lee on August 1, 2000, in Wayne County, Mississippi willfully killed Anice Smith without malice or premeditation, by the use of a deadly weapon, and further that Christopher Lee was not acting in necessary self-defense, then you shall find the defendant guilty of manslaughter. ¶ 11. The State objected to this instruction as being an inaccurate statement of the law and not fitting the facts of this case. The trial court agreed, finding that Instruction S-3, rather than D-2, fit the factual evidence as presented by the defendant. ¶ 12. Instruction D-3 is set out as follows: The Court instructs the Jury that if you find from the evidence in this case, or have a reasonable doubt that Christopher Lee, without any malice or deliberation to cause the death of Anice Smith, and in in the heat of passion or while in a struggle with Anice Smith, or upon any sudden provocation by Anice Smith, did kill Anice Smith then you shall find the defendant not guilty. ¶ 13. Again, the State objected that the instruction was an inaccurate statement of the law and not fitting this case, as well as being confusing. The trial court concluded that D-3 was restating matters that were covered ... in S-3 and refused it. ¶ 14. Instruction D-4 reads as follows: The Court instructs the Jury that if you find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that Christopher Lee on August 1, 2001, in Wayne County, Mississippi willfully killed Anice Smith without malice, in the heat of passion, by the use of a deadly weapon, and further that Christopher Lee was not acting in necessary self-defense, then you shall find the defendant guilty of manslaughter. This instruction was refused by the trial court as repetitive. ¶ 15. The trial court enjoys considerable discretion regarding the form and substance of jury instructions. Higgins v. State, 725 So.2d 220, 223 (Miss. 1998). 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 ... is fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. Id. ¶ 16. Additionally, Lee failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal of repetitive instructions. This Court finds no reversible error.