Opinion ID: 863607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: whether the trial court committed reversible error by erroneously instructing the jury during the proceedings?

Text: ś 83. In this assignment of error, Edwards asserts as error several instructions given from the bench. ś 84. First, Edwards challenges the giving of instruction C-13 which read: The Court instructs the Jury that an accomplice is a person who joins the principal actor, with a common intent to commit the crime in question. An accomplice is guilty to the same extent as the principal actor. If more than one person join together to commit robbery and as a result of such robbery, one of the victims is killed during the commission of the robbery, then each person involved in the robbery is criminally responsible for that death. Edwards asserts that this is not a correct statement of Mississippi law, and relieved the State of its obligation to prove all elements of capital murder and robbery. Edwards cites Hornburger v. State, 650 So.2d 510 (Miss.1995) to support his argument. ś 85. This Court's standard of review in looking at jury instructions was stated in Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777 (Miss.1997). In determining whether error lies in the granting or refusal of various instructions, the instructions actually given must be read as a whole. When so read, if the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found. Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 782 (Miss. 1997) ( quoting Collins v. State, 691 So.2d 918 (Miss.1997)). ś 86. The instruction in Hornburger is readily distinguishable from Instruction C-13. The instruction in Hornburger allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty of burglary if it found that he had done any act which was merely an element of burglary, without having to also find that he committed acts for all elements of the crime. Hornburger v. State, 650 So.2d at 514. (Emphasis added). The instruction in this case is not analogous to the one held to be improper, yet harmless, in Hornburger. Instruction C-13, in the case sub judice does not say that only one element is required to find Edwards guilty of the underlying felony and of capital murder. Furthermore, when Instructions C-8, C-9 and C-11 (cited in Issue III) are read in conjunction with C-13 the trial court correctly placed the burden on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the underlying felony with which Edwards was charged and for the charge of capital murder. Doss v. State, 709 So.2d 369, 379 (Miss.1996). Therefore, there is no merit to this assignment of error. ś 87. Furthermore, Edwards argues for the first time on appeal the instructions of the trial court during jury qualification as violating his rights under the United States Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution. The instruction read as follows: Every defendant at this stage of the trial proceedings is presumed to be innocent. And this presumption carries through the trial until convicted by a jury. The way an indictment is obtained is the State, that's the district attorney's office, presents only its side of the case to the grand jury. And after having heard the State's case, if the grand jury makes a finding that there is probable cause that a felony has been committed and there's probable cause that the defendant committed the crime, then they return what we call an indictment.... However, there was no objection to this instruction made at Edwards' trial or in his Motion for a New Trial and thus, this issue is barred from review. Jackson v. State, 684 So.2d 1213, 1226 (Miss.1996); Chase v. State, 645 So.2d 829, 854 (Miss. 1994). ś 88. Lastly, Edward asserts the trial court misstated the law by stating during voir dire, During the first state of the trial, it will be the responsibility of the jury to determine whether the defendant, Frontrell Edwards, is guilty or not guilty of capital punishment. However, once again there was no objection made by defense counsel, and this issued is barred from review. Jackson v. State, 684 So.2d at 1226; Chase v. State, 645 So.2d at 854.