Opinion ID: 1706325
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the circuit court erred in granting State's Instruction S-6 and refusing Dampier's Instruction D-10.

Text: ¶ 33. Proposed Instruction D-10 provided that: [t]he law permits evidence of certain persons who are termed expert. Experts may testify to their opinions derived from their knowledge of particular matters. However, the ultimate weight to be given to expert testimony is a question to be determined by you, The testimony of any expert, like that of any other witness, is to be received by you and given such weight only as you think it is properly entitled to receive. You are not bound by the opinion testimony of any witness, expert or otherwise. In response, the State submitted Instruction S-6, which stated: [y]ou will recall that individuals have testified as experts in this case. You should consider each expert opinion received in evidence in this case and give it such weight as you may think it deserves. If you should decide that the opinion of an expert witness is not based upon sufficient education and experience, or if you should conclude that the reasons given in support of the opinion are not sound, or that the opinion is outweighed by other evidence, then you may disregard the opinion entirely. (Emphasis added). In support thereof, the State provided that the instruction . . . submitted as S-6 comes out of Jones v. State, 918 So.2d 1220[, 1228-29 (Miss. 2005)]. I basically took that language out of the instruction that was approved in that case. While objecting to Instruction 5-6, counsel for Dampier acknowledged that I don't have the case that supports D-10 because there was a misunderstanding with me. Thereafter, the circuit court granted Instruction S-6 and refused. Instruction D-10. ¶ 34. On appeal, Dampier argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying D-10 and substituting i[t] for S-6, in that: instead of allowing the jurors to simply weigh the testimony of each expert and give it weight they think it deserves, [Instruction S-6] instructs them in part that they may disregard expert testimony because of education and experience. This is crucial because this trial rested heavily on the testimony of the video experts. [Dampier's] expert was a professional photographer and videographer who had done consulting work that was mostly civil. The State's expert worked for [the FBI]. By being allowed to substitute the instructions, the State was able to suggest to the jury that Dampier's expert's testimony could be disregarded because of training and experience. [26] The State responds that: Dampier cites absolutely no case law, nor gives any rational explanation, to support a finding that ['instruction S-6 was in any way erroneously given. Furthermore, when the trial court asked each side for authority to support their similar instructions regarding expert testimony, the State provided the trial court with citations, while defense counsel failed to provide authority to support his instruction based on some misunderstanding with me. (Citation omitted). [27] ¶ 35. This Court finds that Instruction S-6 fairly announce[s] the law of the case on weighing expert testimony [28] and, therefore, create[s] no injustice. Coleman, 697 So.2d at 782. Therefore, we conclude that this issue is without merit and the circuit court did not err in refusing Instruction D-10 and granting Instruction S-6.