Opinion ID: 1652601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in giving state's jury instruction s-3.

Text: ¶ 14. Neal argues that Jury Instruction S-3, dealing with the amount time necessary to form deliberate design prior to committing murder, is erroneous based on similarities to an instruction given in Windham v. State, 520 So.2d 123 (Miss.1987). Neal believes the instruction is flawed because the requirement to form intent prior to the act of violence was effectively eliminated by the phrase if any. Instruction S-3, as given by the trial court, is as follows: The Court instructs the jury that the deliberate design as mentioned in these instructions does not have to exist in the mind of the slayer for any given length of time; and if only moments before the act of violence, if any, the defendant, ANTONIO NEAL A/K/A DEANO, acted with the deliberate design to take life of Lee Wallace Williams, then it was as truly malice and the act was as truly murder as if the deliberate design had existed in the mind of the defendant for minutes, hours, days, weeks or even years. (emphasis added). ¶ 15. Problems occur when the jury is given the option of murder, requiring deliberate design, or the lesser offense of manslaughter, which does not. In Windham v. State, 520 So.2d 123, 125-26 (Miss. 1987), we held the trial court committed error by instructing the jury that deliberate design may be formed at the very moment of the fatal shot where the jury was also given the option of finding manslaughter if it found the killing to have occurred without malice in the heat of passion. Id. ¶ 16. An unjustified and unexcused taking of life is presumed to be murder unless there is evidence upon which a jury can rationally justify mitigation down to manslaughter. An example of mitigation occurs where there is a killing committed in a heat of passion arising out of a legally sufficient provocation. Nicolaou v. State, 534 So.2d 168, 171-72 (Miss.1988). ¶ 17. In Neal's case an instruction for manslaughter was not offered. Moreover, the facts do not justify the giving of a manslaughter instruction. Absent a manslaughter issue, any error in the instruction is harmless. ¶ 18. This assignment of error is without merit.