Opinion ID: 1879070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence.

Text: ¶ 34. A circumstantial evidence instruction should be granted where the State is without a confession or eyewitnesses to the offense charged. Haynes v. State, 744 So.2d 751, 753 (Miss.1999); Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 750 (Miss. 1991). This Court has held that where there is direct evidence of a crime, the circumstantial evidence instruction need not be given. Sullivan v. State, 749 So.2d 983, 992 (Miss.1999) Mack, 481 So.2d at 795. Austin argues that when the prosecution relies on nothing more than an inference that Austin's flight was occasioned by a guilty conscience, a circumstantial evidence instruction should be given. Austin's broader argument, however, is that the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence because the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. This argument fails for the reasons set forth below. ¶ 35. In the case sub judice, a hair consistent with that of Austin was found in the pantyhose-type material discovered beneath the house. Additionally, the State had many eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime and to the events immediately connected with it. Austin argues that the State's physical evidence does not link Austin to the robbery by any means other than circumstantial inference. Austin also asserts that the eyewitness testimony, particularly Officer Hooper's testimony, relies heavily on inference, and should therefore be considered circumstantial evidence. ¶ 36. Various witnesses observed a heavy or chunky man with a gun in his hand, wearing a striped shirt and dark trousers, running out of the Payment Center and down the street immediately following the robbery and shooting. The record reveals that several witnesses identified Austin, both soon after the crime and at trial, as the man they had seen running down the street. It is true that some of the witnesses were not certain at the moment they observed the person running in the street that it was actually Austin. ¶ 37. Officer Charles Hooper, who knew Austin for six years and in high school, observed Austin run past him immediately following the murder of Moore, with a gun in his hand. He testified that at first he did not know who the man was, but that he later figured out that the man was Austin based on Austin's build and on his hair style. Hooper testified that when he went in to work at the police station that same day, Artis Austin's name came up, and it was at that point that Hooper realized it was Austin he had seen running down the street. Austin claims that this makes Hooper's identification of him circumstantial. ¶ 38. Austin cites no authority, however, for his assertion that initial uncertainty in identification makes a case a circumstantial evidence case for purposes of a circumstantial evidence instruction. Uncertainty in identification at the time of the event does not change the fact that there was unequivocal testimony as to Austin's identity at the time of the trial. Such uncertainty merely goes to the weight and probative value of the identification testimony and, as such is a fact for the determination of the trier of fact. Gray v. State, 549 So.2d 1316, 1324 (Miss. 1989). The weight to be given such testimony does nothing to change its status from direct to circumstantial. Id. The jury in this case was instructed that the State was required to prove all the elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. That instruction was sufficient, and this assignment of error is without merit.