Opinion ID: 1683502
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the lower court err in refusing proposed jury instruction d-6?

Text: Calhoun argues that the trial court erred in refusing proposed jury instruction D-6, a self-defense instruction, which provided that: The court instructs the jury that a man has a right to use a deadly weapon to defend himself against an attack made on him by the assaulted party if it reasonably appeared to him to be necessary to protect himself from death or great bodily harm. If you find from the evidence that it reasonably appeared necessary to Dexter Calhoun to fire a gun at the deceased to protect himself, Tammy Jones and/or her children, from great bodily harm, then you must find the Defendant not guilty. (Emphasis added). Instruction D-4 was given by the lower court as follows: The Court instructs the jury that self-defense is a law of necessity. Every human being has a right to defend himself against death or serious bodily harm. But in order to justify the use of deadly force in defense, it must appear that the person attacked was so situated and endangered that he honestly believed, and that he had reasonable grounds for believing, that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. The circumstances under which he acted must have been such as to produce in the mind of a reasonably prudent person, similarly situated, the belief that the other person was then about to kill him, or to do him serious bodily harm. Therefore, if you the jury, believe that the actions, if any, of John Lougin gave Dexter Calhoun reasonable grounds to fear that Dexter Calhoun's life was in danger or that there was imminent danger of serious personal injury to Dexter Calhoun; and that Dexter Calhoun used no more force than was necessary under the circumstances then and there existing to protect himself from such imminent danger, then you must find the Defendant not guilty. The trial court refused Instruction D-6 on the basis that it was repetitious. In regard to Calhoun's argument, it must first be noted that a trial court is not required to instruct a jury over and over on a point of law even though some variations are used in different instructions. Laney v. State, 486 So.2d 1242, 1246 (Miss. 1986); Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297 (Miss. 1983). Further, if when all instructions are read together, the jury is fully and fairly instructed by other instructions the refusal of other similar instructions is not reversible error. Laney, supra ; Groseclose, supra ; Barr v. State, 359 So.2d 334 (Miss. 1978). The question thus becomes whether or not Instruction D-4 as set out above fully instructed the jury on the law of self-defense applicable to the present case. As is apparent, Calhoun sought by requesting Instruction D-6, to inform the jury that self-defense may be applicable where a defendant reasonably believed that another person, in addition to himself, may be in danger of imminent death or great bodily injury. See, Folks v. State, 230 Miss. 217, 92 So.2d 461 (1957). The record is replete with evidence showing threats made by the deceased toward Tammy, not only on the night in question but on prior occasions. In granting Instruction D-4, the lower court, itself, determined that the evidence at trial was such as to merit instructing the jury on self-defense. Once this decision was made by the trial court, the instructions must have been such as to fully and fairly instruct the jury on the law of self-defense. Laney, supra ; Groseclose, supra . In failing to inform the jury that Calhoun could act in the defense of Tammy, pursuant to requested Instruction D-6, the lower court's instructions concerning this area of the law, as applicable to the case sub judice, were deficient. Consequently, Calhoun's verdict and sentence are reversed. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.