Opinion ID: 1694843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying jury instructions regarding lesser-included offense theories.

Text: ¶ 38. Drake contends that the trial court erred in refusing his proposed instructions regarding lesser-included offense theories. Drake fails to enumerate the specific instructions at issue; however, an examination of the record reveals that he proposed instructions for murder, depraved heart murder, and manslaughter. All were refused. ¶ 39. The State did not pursue the death penalty in this case; therefore, the trial court sentenced Drake to life imprisonment. Both murder and depraved heart murder carry sentences of life imprisonment. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-21 (2000). Thus, even if Drake was entitled to instructions outlining these two theories, the denial of those instructions was harmless error. See Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d 793, 801 (Miss.1984). ¶ 40. A lesser-included offense instruction should be given if there is an evidentiary basis in the record that would permit a rational jury to find the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense and to acquit him of the greater offense. Underwood v. State, 708 So.2d 18, 36 (Miss.1998). The lesser-included offense instruction should be granted unless the trial court and ultimately this Court can say, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant and considering all the reasonable inferences which may be drawn in favor of the defendant from the evidence, that no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of a lesser-included offense. Id. ¶ 41. Following these guidelines, the trial court found no evidentiary basis for the lesser-included offense instructions. Mississippi case law will not permit an instruction without credible evidence supporting its premise. Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 353 (Miss.1997). While all doubts in a capital murder case should be resolved in favor of the defendant, a lesser-included offense instruction should never be granted on the basis of pure speculation. Fairchild, 459 So.2d at 801. ¶ 42. This Court has often stated that a defendant is entitled to have the theory of his defense presented to the jury. Triplett v. State, 672 So.2d 1184, 1186 (Miss.1996). Drake argues that the refusal of the lesser-included offense instructions prevents him from doing so. This is not the case. Drake's theory of the case is that he did not participate in the robbery but, to the contrary, was a victim. He claims that he was attempting to prevent a shooting when the accidental shooting occurred. If the jury had chosen to believe Drake's description of the course of events, Drake would have been acquitted. He would not have been guilty of manslaughter or murder. Thus, Drake's theory is not one of manslaughter or murder but rather one of excusable homicide. See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-17 (2000). ¶ 43. A pertinent portion of Drake's proposed manslaughter instruction states as follows: If you find from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Eric Brandon Drake, on or about February 5, 1999, in DeSoto Co., Miss. was negligent and the negligence was so gross as to be tantamount to a wanton disregard of, or utter indifference to the safety of human life, and such negligence, if any, directly caused the death of Jacky Harwell, then you shall find the Defendant, Eric Brandon Drake, guilty of manslaughter. This instruction does not reflect Drake's theory of the case. More importantly, there is no evidentiary basis for the instruction. Therefore, it was properly refused. ¶ 44. Neither the evidence nor Drake's own theory of the case support a manslaughter instruction or a murder instruction. The trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing the instructions. We find no merit to this assignment of error.