Opinion ID: 1147225
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: were the state's jury instructions abstract and inaccurate statements of law and fact?

Text: The appellant objects to the following instruction, S-5, granted to the State: The Court instructs the jury that intent implies purpose to do an act. The instruction although abstract, has been approved by the Court on previous occasions and is patterned after Mississippi Model Jury Instruction 104.17. See Jones v. State, 172 Miss. 597, 161 So. 143 (1935). Appellant also contends that the lower court erred in granting its instruction S-4 which states: The Court instructs the jury that the value of a check shall be deemed to be the value of the money transferred or affected thereby. The language used in the jury instruction is taken directly from the statute. The instruction did not mislead or confuse the jury and was supported by the evidence. Appellant next contends that the lower court erred in refusing Instruction D-2 requested by the appellant. The Court instructs the Jury that if you can view the evidence upon any reasonable accounting consistent with Mr. Medley's innocence, it is your sworn duty as jurors in this case to find Mr. Medley `not guilty'. The instruction is classified as a two-theory instruction. Such an instruction is given only in circumstantial evidence cases and it was properly refused. See Johnson v. State, 347 So.2d 358 (Miss. 1977); Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601 (Miss. 1980). Last, appellant contends that instruction D-4 should have been given. It follows: The Court instructs the Jury that if you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Jim Dukes and Engel Realty Company lost anything of value as a result of the acts of Mr. Don Medley; then, it is your sworn duty as Jurors in this case to return a verdict in favor of Mr. Don Medley. Further, appellant objects to S-1 because it does not track the indictment word for word. There is no merit to these objections. The instruction D-4 is cumulative of other instructions given to the appellant and there is no merit in the objection to S-1. The jury was properly instructed, considering all instructions together, and the lower court did not commit reversible error in either giving or refusing instructions. The issue number five is rejected.