Opinion ID: 1096122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the court err by refusing to grant a murder instruction?

Text: The sole piece of evidence linking Donald Abram to this crime was his confession, and it was this confession which brought about his conviction. Abram offered two lesser offense instructions, one for armed robbery and one for simple, malice aforethought murder. The court refused to instruct on murder because it felt malice aforethought was not present. The court did grant the armed robbery instruction over objection of the District Attorney. Abram argues that his proposed murder instruction was improperly refused. The law is well stated in Mease v. State, 539 So.2d 1324 (Miss. 1989): ... [T]he evidence in a particular case generally warrants granting a lesser offense instruction if a `rational' or a `reasonable' jury could find the defendant not guilty of the principal offense charged in the indictment yet guilty of the lesser included offense. Only where the evidence could only justify a conviction of the principal charge should a lesser offense instruction be refused. (emphasis in original) [citations omitted]. 539 So.2d at 1329-30. See also Toliver v. State, 600 So.2d 186, 189 (Miss. 1992); Mackbee v. State, 575 So.2d 16, 23 (Miss. 1990); Harper v. State, 478 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Miss. 1985). Here, the trial judge granted the only instructions which were warranted by the evidence. There is not the slightest evidentiary suggestion that Abram was guilty of the malice aforethought murder of Percy Quin. An essential element of the crime of [malice aforethought] murder is the felonious and premeditated intent to kill ... Nicolaou v. State, 534 So.2d 168, 174 (Miss. 1988). Too, the evidence must support a finding that the killing was not committed during the commission of armed robbery in order to justify a simple murder instruction. The evidence, as revealed in Abram's confession, shows armed robbery, and also reflects Abram's defense that he did not kill and did not intend to kill. Notwithstanding, he proposed a murder instruction which asked the jury to find him guilty of simple, malice aforethought murder if they believed from the evidence that Donald Ray Abram ... killed Percy Quin ... not in necessary self defense, but with the premeditated and deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed. The State correctly points out that there were but three plausible evidentiary theories: Capital murder, which is justified by a finding that Abram participated in an armed robbery contemplating that lethal force would be used; armed robbery, which is justified by a jury finding that Abram agreed to the armed robbery but was completely unknowing as to any killings and did not contemplate the use of lethal force; and acquittal. No reasonable or rational jury could have found Abram guilty only of simple, malice aforethought murder, and at the same time not guilty of capital murder. The killing undeniably occurred during the commission of armed robbery. The killing, therefore, could only be capital murder, regardless of whether Abram possessed malice aforethought. See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(c), (2)(e) (Supp. 1991). The refusal to instruct on simple murder was proper.