Opinion ID: 1149666
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: DID THE CIRCUIT COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO GRANT JURY INSTRUCTIONS D-14 and D-15?

Text: Appellant's submitted instructions, D-14 and D-15 read as follows: D-14 The Court instructs the Jury that mere presence of a Defendant or the association of a Defendant with other persons or person engaged in unlawful activities is not within itself sufficient to establish guilt on the part of a Defendant. The Court further instructs the Jury that a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to act in a way which furthers some object or purpose of the conspiracy, does not hereby become a conspirator. Before the Jury in this case may find that a Defendant or any other person has become a member of a conspiracy, the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy was knowingly formed and that the Defendants, or other person who is claimed to have been a member, did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously conspire, confederate and agree together and with each other to unlawfully commit grand larceny by stealing a generator, and if the State has failed to so prove, it is your swore [sic] duty to return a verdict of Not Guilty. D-15 A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons to accomplish some unlawful purpose or to accomplish some lawful purpose by unlawful means. In this case, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to establish proof that a comspiracy (sic) existed, is that each Defendant in some way or manner or through contrivance, positively or tacitly came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan to steal a generator as alleged in the indictment. Before the Jury may find that a Defendant has become a member of a conspiracy, the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy was knowingly formed and that each defendant or other person claimed to have been a member, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously conspired, combined, confederated and agreed to participate in the unlawful plan, with intent to advance or further some object or purpose of the conspiracy to steal a generator and if the State has failed to prove such to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt it is your swore [sic] duty, as jurors, to return a verdict of Not Guilty. Appellant contends that these instructions were taken from Gray v. State, 487 So.2d 1304, 1308 (Miss. 1986) and were granted in that case, therefore should be granted in this case. In Gray, this court held that an instruction which omitted necessary elements of conspiracy was not reversible error in that the omission was cured by subsequent instruction in which the missing element was included. Conspiracy is defined as: ... (A) combination of two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful purpose unlawfully, the persons agreeing in order to form the conspiracy. The offense is complete without showing an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. (citations omitted). There must be recognition on the part of the conspirators that they are entering into a common plan and knowingly intend to further its common purpose. McDonald v. State, 454 So.2d 488 (Miss. 1984). If there is an agreement, then knowledge of that agreement follows. The agreement need not be formal or express, but may be inferred from the circumstances, particularly by declarations, acts, and conduct of the alleged conspirators. Griffin v. State, 480 So.2d 1124 (Miss. 1985) Conspiracy is the combination of two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose. The agreement may be shown by circumstantial evidence. There must exist some evidence that a defendant associated himself with the venture. Peoples v. State, 501 So.2d 424, 428 (Miss. 1987). The circuit judge in this case properly denied D-14. The last paragraph of the submitted instruction misstates the law. This paragraph states that the defendant must have agreed to steal the generator, by a more formal agreement than required by the cases cited above. Instructions S-1, S-2, and S-3, submitted by the State, adequately instructed the jury on the elements of conspiracy. Defendant initially objected to these instructions, but withdrew her objections, therefore the trial court did not err in refusing the proposed instruction which was offered to give the defendant's version of conspiracy. The court asked defense counsel if, in his opinion any element of the charge was missing from the State instructions, he responded No, sir. I'm not making that argument. The denial of the requested instruction D-15 was at the discretion of the trial court. It was not abuse of that discretion to deny it. We remand for a new trial due to the errors found in assignments numbers two and four. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. PITTMAN, J., not participating.