Opinion ID: 1831577
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Object to the Granting of Instruction S-9 on Aiding and Abetting.

Text: ¶ 33. Walker's next claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is rather confusing in that he has evidently combined the argument regarding two instructions into one claim. First, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to Instruction S-9 which was an aiding and abetting instruction. However, Walker then switches gears and begins discussing the claim raised on direct appeal relating to Instruction S-2, which is an acquit first instruction. Walker then switches back to the discussion of Instruction S-9 for the remainder of the argument on this claim. Since there is some confusion over just what claim Walker is presenting to the Court, we will address both out of caution. Instruction S-9 ¶ 34. Walker raised this claim on direct appeal. The Court held the claim to be procedurally barred as the objection interposed at trial was different than that raised on appeal. See Walker, 671 So.2d at 605-06. The Court did not alternatively address the merits of this claim. Therefore, in looking to the merits of this claim, the instruction was a proper statement of the law in 1991 at the time of trial. The instruction given was approved as a correct statement of the law by this Court in Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 287 (Miss. 1992), and Davis v. State, 586 So.2d 817, 821 (Miss.1991). The instruction was upheld against the same argument made here in Simmons v. State, 568 So.2d 1192, 1203-04 (Miss.1990). Simmons challenged the instruction stating that it misled the jury because it implies that conviction was proper where only one element of the crime is proven. The Court held that this instruction was proper when read with the other instructions requiring the State to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Kelly v. State, 493 So.2d 356, 359 (Miss.1986); White v. State, 330 So.2d 877, 879 (Miss.1976). ¶ 35. Under the teachings of Malone v. State, 486 So.2d 360 (Miss.1986), Instruction S-9, when read in conjunction with Instruction S-1 and Instruction S-2, clearly required the jury to find all the elements of the crime for which Walker was charged. In Malone this Court stated: As all surely know by now, we do not review jury instructions in isolation. Rather, we read all instructions as a whole to determine whether the jury has been correctly instructed. Not every point involved in a case must be included in every instruction given. Clayton v. Thompson, 475 So.2d 439, 445 (Miss. 1985). Assuming arguendo that Instruction C.OO is less than perfect, we find that the instructions given the jury as a whole fairly and adequately state the law and that reversal would be inappropriate. [Internal quotes omitted.] More specifically, a combined reading of Instruction Nos. C.OO, S-1 and D-7 fairly present all issues warranted by the evidence and inherent in the charge of accessory before the fact of armed robbery. Miss.Code Ann. §§ 97-3-79 and 97-1-3 (1972). 486 So.2d at 365. ¶ 36. Instructions S-1, S-2 and S-9, read together, require the jury to find that Konya Edwards was killed and correctly set forth the other elements and issues the jury must find before Walker could be convicted. See Bell v. State, 725 So.2d 836, 847-48 (Miss.1998); Carr v. State, 655 So.2d 824, 832-33 (Miss.1995); Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601, 609 (Miss.1980). The instruction was a correct statement of the law in 1991 and could have been properly given even if it had been objected to by counsel on the grounds now asserted. ¶ 37. A similar instruction was first questioned in Hornburger v. State, 650 So.2d 510, 514-15 (Miss.1995). There the Court held the instruction to be improper, but harmless when the jury was fully instructed that it must find all of the elements of the offense in other instructions. The instruction continued to be challenged over the next several years. In Milano v. State, 790 So.2d 179 (Miss.2001), this instruction was once again given. The Court held the instruction to be improper, but once again, the Court found any error to be harmless because when the instructions were read as a whole, the jury was properly instructed on its duty. Further, the Court held: The same problematic jury instruction used in Hornburger, Berry v. State, 728 So.2d 568 (Miss.1999)], and Lester v. State, 744 So.2d 757 (Miss.1999)] is once again before this Court. To avoid any further confusion, today, we prospectively adopt the Fifth Circuit's Pattern Jury Instruction on Aiding and Abetting due to continuing litigation and confusion over this issue. The use of this instruction should cure future problems regarding this issue. 790 So.2d at 185. The Court was clear that the Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction on Aiding and Abetting was to be given prospective application only. Although Walker asks the Court to adopt the Fifth Circuit instruction in his application, clearly Walker fails to comprehend the decision in Milano. Therefore, Walker cannot avail himself of the decision in Milano. ¶ 38. Looking to the instructions given in this case in addition to S-9 we find the jury was fully instructed on its duties. Instruction C.I stated in part: You are not to single out one instruction alone as stating the law but you must consider these instructions as a whole. In Instruction C.I3 we find the following language: This presumption places upon the State of Mississippi the burden of proving the Defendant guilty of every material element of the crime with which he is charged. Before you can return a verdict of guilty, the State of must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty. In Instruction C-20 we find the following language: If you find that the State has failed to prove any one of the essential elements of the crime of CAPITAL MURDER, you must find the defendant not guilty of said crime. Instruction S-l states: The Defendant, ALAN DALE WALKER, has been charged in the indictment with the crime of Capital Murder for having killed Konya Rebecca Edwards during the commission of Sexual Battery of Konya Rebecca Edwards. If you find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. The incident in this case occurred on or about September 9, 1990, in the First Judicial District of Harrison County, Mississippi; 2. Konya Rebecca Edwards was a living human being; 3. The Defendant, alone or in conjunction with another, did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kill and murder Konya Rebecca Edwards by asphyxiation, said asphyxiation resulted in the death of Konya Rebecca Edwards; and 4. That the killing of Konya Rebecca Edwards occurred while the Defendant, alone or in conjunction with another, was in the process of committing the crime and felony of Sexual Battery of Konya Rebecca Edwards, against her will, then you shall find the Defendant, ALAN DALE WALKER, Guilty of Capital Murder. If the State has failed to prove any one or more of the above elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find the Defendant Not Guilty of Capital Murder. Reading the above instructions, including Instruction S-9, as a whole, the jury was fully informed that every element of the capital murder had to be proved by the State. See Milano, 790 So.2d at 185; Carr, 655 So.2d at 832-33. ¶ 39. At the time of trial Instruction S-9 was considered a proper statement of the law. Trial counsel is not required to be prescient, but only to know the law as it exists at the time of trial. A claim of ineffectiveness cannot be based on trial counsel's failure to anticipate a future change in the law. See Chase v. State, 699 So.2d 521, 542-43 (Miss.1997). Therefore, Walker cannot demonstrate deficient performance in trial counsel's failure to object. Further, since the granting of Instruction S-9 is at most harmless error, Walker cannot demonstrate actual prejudice. Both findings are required by Strickland. ¶ 40. Walker is not entitled to seek relief on the ground of ineffectiveness as it relates to the failure to object to Instruction S-9 on the grounds presented here. Acquit First Instruction ¶ 41. As stated above, Walker's argument under this number briefly addresses another claim. From reading the brief reference and looking to the opinion of this Court on direct appeal, we surmise that this relates to the claim raised on direct appeal concerning the acquit first instruction. The Court considered this claim, held it to be procedurally barred from consideration, and then alternatively addressed the merits. The Court held the claim to be without merit. See Walker, 671 So.2d at 606-08. ¶ 42. Because this Court held the substantive merits of this claim to be without merit, Walker cannot sustain the required showing of prejudice to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Apparently, Walker is actually raising this claim as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, thus he is entitled to no relief.