Opinion ID: 1608240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the trial court err by denying defense instruction D-7, a lesser included offense instruction covering petit theft?

Text: ¶ 16. Defense instruction D-7, which was refused by the trial court, reads as follows: The Court instructs the jury that if you find that the state has failed to prove any one of the essential elements of the crime STRONG ARM ROBBERY, you must find the defendant not guilty. You will then proceed with your deliberations to decide whether the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the lesser crime of PETTY [sic] LARCENY. If warranted by the evidence, you may find MARK MCKEE guilty of a crime lesser than STRONG ARM ROBBERY. However, notwithstanding that right, it is your duty to accept the law as given to you by the court. If the facts and the law warrant a conviction for the crime of STRONG ARM ROBBERY, then it is your duty to make such a finding, uninfluenced by your power to find a lesser offense. This provision is not designed to relieve you from the performance of an unpleasant duty. It is included to prevent a failure of justice if the evidence fails to prove the original charge, but does justify a verdict for PETTY [sic] LARCENY. PETTY [sic] LARCENY is defined as the unlawful taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with, but lacks the element of placing someone in fear. ¶ 17. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-43(1) (2000) defines the offense of petit larceny in the following manner: If any person shall feloniously take, steal and carry away any personal property of another under the value of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00), he shall be guilty of petit larceny and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months or by fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both. ¶ 18. Jury instruction D-7, as submitted by McKee, contained an incomplete statement of the law. D-7's definition of petit larceny failed to state that the item stolen must be valued at under $250 to qualify for that offense. This Court has observed: [W]here under the evidence a party is entitled to have the jury instructed regarding a particular issue and where that party requests an instruction which for whatever reason is inadequate in form or content, the trial judge has the responsibility either to reform and correct the proffered instruction himself or to advise counsel on the record of the perceived deficiencies therein and to afford counsel a reasonable opportunity to prepare a new, corrected instruction. Harper v. State, 478 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Miss.1985). If McKee was entitled to the lesser included offense instruction, the trial court should have either corrected D-7 on its own, or allowed McKee an opportunity to correct D-7. Therefore, the issue becomes whether McKee was entitled to the lesser-included offense instruction. ¶ 19. We have repeatedly held that lesser-included offense instructions should not be indiscriminately granted. Rather, they should be submitted to the jury only where there is an evidentiary basis in the record therefor. Lee v. State, 469 So.2d 1225, 1228 (Miss.1985). In the same way, this Court has also held that a jury instruction may be denied if it misstates the law, is covered by other instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991). This Court articulated the standard to be applied in deciding whether a lesser-included offense instruction should be granted: [A] lesser included offense instruction should be granted unless the trial judgeand ultimately this Court can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the accused, and considering all reasonable references which may be drawn in favor of the accused from the evidence, that no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense (and conversely not guilty of at least one essential element of the principal charge). Harper v. State, 478 So.2d at 1021. ¶ 20. The record contains no proof of the value of the purse or its contents. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing jury instruction D-7.