Opinion ID: 1868405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the trial court should have granted instruction d-7, the single juror instruction?

Text: Proposed jury instruction D-7 was not given; it reads as follows: The Court charges each juror that it is your sworn duty to vote on each and every ballot of the jury Not Guilty, unless, after conferring with the other jurors and considering the evidence, your mind is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the Defendant. You cannot, under your oath as a juror, compromise your honest beliefs or opinions from the evidence, or lack of evidence, as to the guilt or innocence of the Defendant for the purpose of bringing in a verdict. Under your oath and under the law, you should never surrender such beliefs or opinions simply because other members of the jury may disagree with you or insist that you yield to save the time of the Court or prevent a mistrial, or shorten the labors of the jury panel, or because of anything or reason whatsoever, or for any purpose whatsoever. You should vote Not Guilty as long as, after consideration of the evidence or lack of evidence in this case, the State has failed to prove Vernon Catchings' guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Catchings contends that the trial court committed reversible error by denying this single juror instruction. He argues that the instruction was critical to Catchings in that it would have instructed the jury to, among other things, not change their `honest convictions' for any reason. However, the record reflects that the jurors were instructed not to surrender their honest convictions in instruction C-5. Furthermore, the jurors were also instructed in Instruction D-5 that they had a duty not to change their vote merely to agree with his or her fellow jurors. Regarding the standard for reviewing jury instructions, an instructional error will not warrant reversal if the jury was fully and fairly instructed by other instructions. Collins v. State, 594 So.2d 29, 35 (Miss. 1992); Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss. 1991). The jurors were amply instructed regarding this issue. Catchings' argument on this point, therefore, is without merit.