Opinion ID: 1133683
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in refusing proposed jury instruction D-17.

Text: ś 129. Rubenstein alleges the trial court erred in denying proposed jury instruction D-17, [15] which states, [t]he testimony of incarcerated individuals can be looked at with some question. You have the right to accept or disregard testimony of an inmate and give it any weight you choose. This issue concerns the testimony of Stevens and Ballinger, both of whom had been incarcerated. ś 130. Rubenstein argues we should retroactively apply Moore v. State, 787 So.2d 1282 (Miss.2001), in which this Court discussed the unreliability of jail house informant, or snitch, testimony, and reversed the trial court's denial of a cautionary instruction. Id. at 1287. However, in pointing out that Moore was decided on its particular facts, we stated that this Court finds that the trial court erred in refusing jury instruction D-24 and that it was an abuse of discretion to deny Moore a cautionary instruction in the face of evidence that Bully may have received favorable treatment in exchange for his testimony. Id. at 1287-88 (emphasis added). ś 131. The State argues Moore is inapplicable and also distinguishable from this case, and that our ruling in Manning v. State, 735 So.2d 323 (Miss.1999), is dispositive. In Manning, this Court affirmed the denial of a cautionary instruction, stating: Manning was allowed to question fully both Lucious and Ashford about any potential preferential treatment which they might be receiving in exchange for their testimony. Neither witness made any deals with law enforcement or prosecutors regarding their testimony at Manning's trial. . . . This questioning satisfied the dictates of Foster [,508 So.2d at 1115]. Manning, 735 So.2d at 335. ś 132. Here, both Stevens and Ballinger testified that they neither received nor were promised any favorable treatment in exchange for their testimony. There is nothing to support the application of Moore to this case. ś 133. Additionally, Landon Phelps, the jail administrator for the Pike County Sheriff's Department during Rubenstein's first trial, also testified. During a break in the first trial, Rubenstein requested to go to the bathroom. Phelps testified that when Rubenstein came out of the restroom, the following conversation transpired: And when he came out, he asked me, said, Mr. Phelps, would you give me your honest opinion. . . . I said, well, I don't know whether I can legally do that or not. And he, without any further hesitation, said, well, said, do you think Stevenson's [Stevens's] testimony hurt my case. . . . And he said, well, I told him what went on up there at Summit, but I didn't know he was going [sic] turn it into a confession. And that ended that conversation. Thus, Phelps's testimony provides reliability for Stevens's assertion that he and Rubenstein discussed the murders. Based on the record, we find the trial court did not err in denying proposed jury instruction D-17.