Opinion ID: 1847325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: judge evans' instruction on the robbery prong of capital murder failed to inform jurors of the necessary cause-and-effect connection between the putting in fear and the taking elements of this offense.

Text: ś 141. First, Jerome contends that the jury was improperly instructed on the elements of robbery. He maintains the instruction neglected to set out that armed robbery may be established by proof that the defendant took property by violence to the victim's person, and instead only mentioned the putting in fear element of robbery. He claims that the problem with the instruction is that it failed to specifically set out the cause and effect relationship between the taking and putting in fear elements of the offense of robbery. Jones v. State, 567 So.2d 1189, 1192 (Miss.1990). He claims that although the instruction noted the putting in fear element of robbery, it neglected to explain that the state, in order to prove the elements of robbery, must show that `[i]f putting in fear is relied upon, it must be the fear under duress of which the owner parts with possession.' Id. (quoting Crocker v. State, 272 So.2d 664, 665 (Miss.1973)). ś 142. It is Jerome's contention that the State's evidence clearly showed that a surprised victim died within seconds of being shot, and that only after the shooting did the assailant or assailants remove the cash register and spare cash drawer from the store. Since the evidence showed that victim was already dead before anything was taken from the store, he argues that the robbery could not have occurred by putting him under the duress of any fear of injury. ś 143. Jerome made no objection to the robbery portion of the instruction in the trial court. The failure to make a contemporaneous objection waives this issue for the purposes of appeal. A trial judge will not be found in error on a matter not presented to him for decision. Jones v. State, 606 So.2d 1051, 1058 (Miss.1992) ( citing Crenshaw v. State, 520 So.2d 131, 134 (Miss.1988); Howard v. State, 507 So.2d 58, 63 (Miss. 1987)). See also Ballenger, 667 So.2d at 1259; Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1270 (Miss.1994); Mitchell v. State, 609 So.2d 416, 422 (Miss.1992); Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss.1988). ś 144. This issue is also without merit. Any error in not instructing the jury that armed robbery may be established by proof that the defendant took property by violence to the person was, at most, harmless. Besides, as there were no eye-witnesses to the murder, it is possible to theorize that one or both of the Smith brothers took the cash register or extra cash drawer while the victim was still alive by putting him in fear of immediate injury to his person, and the victim was only shot afterward, while one or both of the brothers were exiting the scene. The evidence presented at trial would just as easily support this scenario as any other. Therefore, the facts could support the instruction given. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.