Opinion ID: 1846796
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether the trial court committed reversible error when it submitted jury instruction s-6 to the jury?

Text: ¶ 16. Gibson next challenges the trial court's granting of Instruction S-6, set out as follows: The Court instructs the Jury that no person has the right to resist or obstruct his lawful arrest, by a law enforcement officers by force, or violence, or threats, or by any other manner. Gibson asserts on appeal that this instruction was essentially a comment by the trial judge on evidentiary matters. However, defense counsel's objection at trial was, I don't think there's anything in the case that suggests that he resisted arrest by violence or threats or any other manner. I don't think that's been shown in this case. The court disagreed, stating, Well I think the testimony of the Deputy was that he instructed the man to stop and the man pulledpointed a gun at him. I would say that's rather violence [sic] if the jury believes the officer's testimony. That one is given. Thus, the only challenge to instruction S-6 was a lack of evidentiary support. On appeal, Gibson is limited to the position taken at trial. Roundtree v. State, 568 So.2d 1173, 1177 (Miss.1990). The issue of whether this instruction constituted an impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence was not presented to the trial court and thus, is not properly before this Court. Thornhill v. State, 561 So.2d 1025, 1029 (Miss.1989). Therefore, Gibson's second assignment of error is without merit. ¶ 17. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, this Court will address this issue on the merits. Jury instructions are to be granted only where evidence has been presented which supports the instruction. Tharp v. Bunge Corp., 641 So.2d 20, 26 (Miss.1994). `A party to an action is entitled to have the jury instructed regarding a genuine issue of material fact so long as there is credible evidence in the record which would support the instruction.' Sumrall v. Mississippi Power Co., 693 So.2d 359, 363 (Miss.1997) ( quoting Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So.2d 970, 973 (Miss.1989) ( quoting Hill v. Dunaway, 487 So.2d 807, 809 (Miss. 1986))). The Court finds that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis in the record to support an instruction regarding resisting arrest. As stated above, Deputy Hollis testified that he instructed Gibson to stop and notified Gibson that he was the police. Gibson pointed a gun in the deputy's direction, fired and continued to run away. This is credible evidence of resisting arrest by means of violence-firing of a gun at the deputy. Therefore, regardless of the fact that this issue is procedurally barred, the trial court was correct in its decision to allow instruction S-6. This issue is found to be without merit. III. A. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT STATED THAT GIBSON WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A SIMPLE ASSAULT INSTRUCTION? B. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED JURY INSTRUCTION D-8?