Opinion ID: 1721671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: were the jury instructions at the guilt phase fundamentally flawed?

Text: Here, Shell finds fault with the jury instructions given at the guilt phase of the trial because they were very brief, and failed to fully apprise the jurors of the elements of the crime charged. The State points out again that no objection was made to the jury instructions that are challenged as being deficient. Rule 5.03 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice provides that [a]t the conclusion of the taking of testimony the attorneys shall dictate into the record their specific objections to the requested instructions and specifically point out the grounds for objection. Notwithstanding the absence of objection to any instruction, this Court considered the instructions and finds no deficiency in the trial court's instructions taken as a whole. Since the jury was properly instructed, there is no merit to either portion of this assignment of error. Concluding the guilt/innocence phase of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty to capital murder while engaged in the crime of robbery. The murder of Mrs. Audie Kirkland Johnson resulted from the assault upon her by the assailant using a tire tool; the jury found that assailant to be the defendant Robert Shell. The underlying crime of robbery is defined in Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-79 as a tak[ing] or attempt to take from the person or from the presence the personal property of another and against his will by violence... . The State proved the corpus delicti of robbery by establishing the disarranged condition of the victim's house when it was normally kept in a tidy condition. The removal of clothing from drawers, of guns from the gun rack and emptied billfolds was sufficient to evidence an attempted robbery. By statutory definition, the attempt to rob, as well as the robbery, constitutes the crime of robbery. Upon this proof, the confession of the defendant to the taking of money from the victims' purses is admissible. Thus, the corpus delicti of robbery is established. Sullivan v. State, 216 Miss. 809, 63 So.2d 212 (1953). In addition to the above, this Court has held in a capital murder case that the corpus delicti in a homicide case is made up of two fundamental facts, the first, the death of the deceased, and the second, the fact of the existence of a criminal agency as to the cause of death. In Gentry v. State, 416 So.2d 650 (Miss. 1982), this Court held that the admission of the confession to establish the corpus delicti of the underlying felony of robbery was proper so long as the corpus delicti of murder was sufficiently established. Rhone v. State, 254 So.2d 750 (Miss. 1970); Elliott v. State, 183 So.2d 805 (Miss. 1966). It is this Court's opinion that the evidence presented was sufficient to convince a rational factfinder of Shell's guilt of the crime of capital murder while engaged in the commission of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.