Opinion ID: 1695490
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Propriety of Instruction

Text: Instruction S-6 reads: The Court instructs the Jury that Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care is that degree of care which a reasonably careful person would use under like or similar circumstances. Negligence may consist either in doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like or similar circumstances or in failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like or similar circumstances. When the instruction was offered, Holloman objected because criminal negligence should be more than what was given in that instruction... . you should have negligence and then culpable negligence and then something in between which would be criminal negligence, something more than simple negligence. The court overruled that objection and accepted S-6 because simple negligence is an issue in this case as it relates to the DUI maiming and DUI killing. [4] Holloman now argues that, as a result of the increased penalty imposed by statute, more than simple negligence should be required for conviction of DUI maiming. Holloman is correct on one point  this Court has said simple negligence is sufficient for a conviction pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30(4) (Supp. 1994). See Banks, 525 So.2d at 402. The statute requires only negligence, not gross or culpable negligence. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30(4) (Supp. 1994). Had the legislature intended to heighten the standard of negligence required when it increased the penalty for DUI maiming, it could certainly have done so. We therefore decline Holloman's invitation to legislate from the bench.