Opinion ID: 1598918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the trial court erred in denying appellant's request for a manslaughter instruction.

Text: ¶ 100. Burns' thirteenth assignment of error charges that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request for a manslaughter instruction. Burns claims that a reasonable jury could have convicted him of manslaughter if it found that defendant was not guilty of armed robbery, but did find that Burns killed McBride without malice afore-thought. ¶ 101. The State argues first that Burns failed to request a manslaughter instruction. Secondly it contends that Burns failed to object to the court's lesser included instruction of murder. Finally, the State argues that Burns did not include the failure to give a manslaughter instruction in his motion for a new trial. ¶ 102. The following exchange occurred immediately following the objections to the jury instructions: THE COURT: ... Either side desire any additional instructions than those I've indicated I'm going to give? MR. YOUNG: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Defendant? MR. ELLIS: No, your Honor. The only reference to a lesser included offense instruction was offered by the State, and it was ultimately withdrawn by the State. The following exchange occurred: INSTRUCTION NO. P-1st-5: THE COURT:P-1st-5 was withdrawn by the State; is that correct? MR. GEDDIE: I believe so, your Honor. Give me one second here. THE COURT: Lesser included manslaughter. MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir, it's withdrawn. Finally, the State argues that there was absolutely no evidence or reasonable inference presented [by the defendant] that would justify a manslaughter verdict. ¶ 103. This Court has addressed a very similar issue in Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542, 549 (Miss.1990) (holding that defendant convicted of capital murder while in the commission of a robbery was not entitled to a manslaughter instruction). The Court said in Griffin that [t]his homicide having occurred during the course of a robbery, it was capital murder, regardless of the intent of Griffin. Id. In the case sub judice, Burns was engaged in the commission of robbery when McBride was killed. Thus, no manslaughter instruction was required to be given. ¶ 104. The record reveals that Burns never offered any mitigating evidence that would justify manslaughter rather than murder. There was nothing to indicate that this murder was done in the heat of passion. Because the burden to overcome the presumption of murder lies with the defendant, Nicolaou v. State, 534 So.2d 168, 171-72 (Miss.1988), and because Burns failed to meet this burden, this issue is without merit.