Opinion ID: 1845235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: was it error to refuse to give circumstantial evidence instructions?

Text: Clark insists that the language ... to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, then you shall find the defendant not guilty should have been included in the burden of proof instructions because this was purely a circumstantial evidence case. We have reversed cases in which (1) the State's proof consisted entirely of circumstantial evidence; and (2) the trial court failed to grant a circumstantial evidence instruction. Henderson v. State, 453 So.2d 708, 710 (Miss. 1984); Wooldridge v. State, 274 So.2d 131, 133 (Miss. 1973) (no direct evidence of any kind linking defendant with the crime); Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661 (Miss. 1971) (circumstantial evidence instruction required where conviction rests on circumstances and not direct proof); Kendall v. State, 217 So.2d 35, 36 (Miss. 1968) (case entirely one of circumstantial evidence). However we will not reverse a conviction based upon both direct and circumstantial evidence. Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445, 461-62 (Miss. 1984); Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601, 606 (Miss. 1980). The determination to be made here is was the testimony of Annie Mae Hunt direct evidence. She did not see the knife in Clark's hand and cannot say that Clark stabbed Hunt. But when asked to demonstrate what had happened Annie Mae Clark did say All right, so about that time, me and Ruby was talking. Okay, and I turned, and as I turned, he grabbed him around and hit him, and when he hit him, John D. did like this (Indicates) and fell back behind the table, and was holding his stomach. And, he got up from the table with his hand, and he pulled his shirt up and the blood was just there, and when he looked up, he looked at Larry Clark, and say, Why did you do that? Then, he set back down. And, during the time when Larry was standing there, this other little table here, that's where the knife was, on the floor. That's when I picked it up and shut it up and put it in my pink and white towel and put it in my pocket, and took it over and gave it to Leo. In Bunkley v. State, 495 So.2d 1 (Miss. 1986), this Court said: The prevailing standard as to the necessity for granting a circumstantial evidence instruction is set forth in Keys v. State, 478 So.2d 266 (Miss. 1985), and Mack v. State, 481 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1985). A correct statement is that the instruction must be given where the prosecution is without a confession and wholly without eyewitnesses to the gravamen of the offense charged. Keys at 267. (Emphasis added). 495 So.2d at 4. Here we not only have eyewitness testimony, we have the testimony of Detective Sgt. Waldron, an admission by Clark, which operates to render unnecessary the circumstantial evidence instruction. See Mack v. State, 481 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1985); Reed v. State, 229 Miss. 440, 91 So.2d 269 (1956). The eyewitness testimony when coupled with Clark's admission viewed in light of the prevailing caselaw in Mississippi mandates that we affirm the trial court in its refusal to grant a circumstantial evidence instruction.