Opinion ID: 1946583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the trial court err in refusing appellant's requested cautionary instruction concerning the testimony of Ray Alexander as an alleged accomplice?

Text: Ray Alexander, appellant's 21 year old stepson and witness on behalf of the state, was indicted and charged along with the appellant for the murder of Bobby Wayne Watson. Appellant argues that the trial court accordingly erred in refusing appellant's requested instruction D-10 as follows: Ray Alexander is an alleged accomplice in this case and the testimony of an accomplice is to be considered and weighed with great care and caution. You may give it such weight and credit as you deem it is entitled. The granting or refusing of a cautionary instruction regarding the testimony of an accomplice lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Jones v. State, 381 So.2d 983 (Miss. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1003, 101 S.Ct. 543, 66 L.Ed.2d 300 (1981); Fleming v. State, 319 So.2d 223 (Miss. 1975); Ragan v. State, 318 So.2d 879 (Miss. 1975). In ruling on the requested instruction, the trial judge in the case sub judice acknowledged that a close question was presented and set forth the reasons for his ruling. BY JUDGE BIGGERS: In view of the situation that it is very close question as to whether or not Ray Alexander should be considered as an accomplice in this particular factual situation, the Court is of the opinion that he is in fact not an accomplice, a step-son going with his step-father on a mission is not in the Court's opinion enough to classify him as an accomplice and also it is a comment on the evidence of the witness that otherwise, if he is not an accomplice, and for those reasons D-10 will be refused. Counsel will, of course, be allowed to argue to the jury what interest, if any, Ray Alexander has in the case but the Court is not going to bring it up and comment on it. This Court finds that the circuit judge's ruling on this instruction was not an abuse of discretion under the facts of this case. Finding no reversible error, the Court affirms the conviction of the defendant. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P. JJ., ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE and SULLIVAN, JJ., dissent.