Opinion ID: 1830890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: the failure to give a circumstantial evidence instruction violated willie manning's rights.

Text: ¶ 24. This issue boils down to a dispute over whether the statements Manning made to Kevin Lucious and Herbert Ashford were direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Judge Montgomery refused Manning's Instruction DGP-5, finding that this was a direct evidence case. Instruction DGP-5 reads as follows: The Court instructs the jury that if the jury can deduce from the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, either from the evidence or lack of evidence, any reasonable hypothesis or theory consistent with the innocence of Willie Jerome Manning, then there is a reasonable doubt of his guilt, and the jury must return a verdict of Not Guilty. Circumstantial evidence language was also removed from Manning's Instructions DGP-2 and DGP-3. ¶ 25. Where all the evidence tending to prove the guilt of the defendant is circumstantial, the trial court must grant a jury instruction that every reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt must be excluded in order to convict. Givens v. State, 618 So.2d 1313, 1318 (Miss.1993). A circumstantial evidence instruction must be given only when the prosecution can produce neither an eyewitness nor a confession/statement by the defendant. Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 750 (Miss.1991). [C]ircumstantial evidence is evidence which, without going directly to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to logical inference that such fact does exist. Conversely, eye witness testimony is thought of as direct evidence. Givens, 618 So.2d at 1318. Direct evidence may also consist of a confession by the defendant, including the defendant's admission to a person other than a law enforcement officer. Ladner, 584 So.2d at 750. ¶ 26. Lucious's testimony regarding Manning's description of pushing his way into the old ladies' apartment, combined with Manning's statements that if he'd known they had so little money he wouldn't have hurt them and that killing someone is nothing, amount to a confession and therefore direct evidence. See Mack v. State, 481 So.2d 793, 795 (Miss.1985) (There is no reason on principle why an admission by the defendant on a significant element of the offense should not also operate to render unnecessary the circumstantial evidence instruction.). Ashford's testimony that he overheard Manning tell Lucious that he should have done more to the ladies similarly equated to evidence of a confession. Moreover, Lucious was able to give an eyewitness account of Manning entering the victims' apartment, shoving his way inside. Judge Montgomery's decision to deny jury instructions on circumstantial evidence was not error.