Opinion ID: 1706950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: denial of instruction on the lesser included offense

Text: ¶ 52. Bell argues that the trial court erroneously refused Bell's request for a simple murder instruction. The trial judge stated, I don't think there's anything that would allow us to give a lesser-included instruction. Bell maintains that under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, a capital murder defendant is entitled to an instruction on any non-capital offense supported by the evidence. Further, he cites Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d 793 (Miss.1984), wherein this Court said: [o]nly if this Court can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the accused, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn in favor of the accused from the evidence, and considering that the jury may not be required to believe any evidence offered by the State, that no hypothetical, reasonable jury could convict [the defendant] of simple murder, can it be said that the refusal of the lesser-included instruction was proper [citation omitted]. Id. at 801. However, the Court also ruled that a lesser-included offense instruction should never be granted on the basis of pure speculation. Id. (affirming the denial of a lesser-included offense instruction for manslaughter). ¶ 53. In Fairchild, the State presented evidence to show that Fairchild agreed with his codefendant, Dickson, to rob the victim and gave Dickson a knife. Later, while Fairchild was asleep, Dickson murdered the victim. After Dickson awoke Fairchild, the two defendants stole the victim's jewelry and travelers checks, which they split. The Court held it was error to have refused Fairchild's requested simple murder instruction because to hold otherwise would be to find that the defendant is already guilty of the underlying felony. ¶ 54. The State argues correctly the procedural bar of Nicholson and Lockett, supra, as Bell interposed no objection to the refusal of this instruction. ¶ 55. Alternatively, the State points out that a similar issue was decided by the Court in Abram v. State, 606 So.2d 1015 (Miss.1992). In Abram, the Court upheld the trial court's refusal of a simple murder instruction where the defendant was charged with capital murder. The Court stated, 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. Id. at 1035. There is simply no evidence in this case to suggest Bert's murder was not committed during an armed robbery, especially in light of the discovery of the .38 caliber pistol belonging to the store under the control of Bell in Memphis. This issue is procedurally and substantially without merit.