Opinion ID: 1736888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the trial court erred in denying proposed jury instruction d-6.

Text: ¶ 20. Smith next argues that by denying his proffered Instruction D-6, [2] the trial court denied him an instruction on his only defense theorymisidentification. Our standard of review for the denial of jury instructions is clear: The standard of review for challenges to jury instructions is as follows: Jury 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. Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 192 (Miss.2001)(quoting Humphrey v. State, 759 So.2d 368, 380 (Miss.2000)). On the specific issue of jury instructions dealing with eyewitness identification, we have said that the general instruction given to the jury to the effect that the State has the burden of proving each element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, includes the misidentification issue. Robinson v. State, 473 So.2d 957, 963 (Miss.1985). As was the case in Robinson, the S-1 jury instruction in the case at bar places upon the State the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Marcus Leon Smith ... willfully and with deliberate design to effect the death of Timothy Holmes ... did kill and murder Timothy Holmes ... then you shall find the defendant guilty as charged. If the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the above listed elements beyond a reasonable doubt then you shall find Marcus Leon Smith not guilty. Consequently, Smith's misidentification theory considered by the jury even in the absence of Instruction D 6. This issue is without merit.