Opinion ID: 1675525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: was reversible error committed in refusing instructions authorizing convictions or lesser offenses?

Text: Instructions D-9 and D-10 would have authorized the jury to convict Hill of murder or manslaughter. Instruction D-8-A gives the form of verdict for such lesser included offenses. The circuit judge refused these instructions. No error was committed by the trial judge's refusal to grant these instructions. The testimony of Gregory Tucker made out a case of a planned and pre-conceived robbery by Hill, Milam, and himself, in which Hill was leader and chief actor. After hijacking the truck, Hill marched Watkins off into the edge of the woods where his body was later found, and shot him in the back of the head. Tucker heard several shots. As Hill was taking Watkins from the truck to the woods, Tucker heard Watkins begging for his life. Counsel now argues the robbery took place before the murder. Of course, the record reveals the murder took place during the execution of the robbery. Furthermore, as we stated in Pickle v. State, 345 So.2d 623, (Miss. 1977): If the crime of capital murder could not be sustained unless the homicide occurred during the actual attack upon a victim or during the actual burglary, kidnapping, arson or robbery, such could be an inducement for an assailant to kill his victim after the commission of the first crime in order to silence her/him as a witness. The rules stated in the foregoing cases is the more reasonable, and we hold that where the two crimes are connected in a chain of events and occur as part of the res gestae, the crime of capital murder is sustained Id. at 626-27. We find no merit in this assignment of error.