Opinion ID: 2537633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in granting instruction S-3B and in refusing instruction D-51.

Text: ¶ 40. Fulgham argues that the trial court should have refused the State's instruction, S-3B, an instruction on the lesser offense of murder. It instructed the jurors to consider the lesser offense of murder only if they first unanimously found the defendant not guilty of capital murder. S-3B reads: The Court instructs the Jury that if you unanimously find that the State has failed to prove all the elements of the crime of Capital Murder, you may then proceed in your deliberations to consider the lesser charge of Murder. However, it is your duty to accept the law given to you by the Court; and if the facts and the law warrant a conviction of the crime of Capital Murder, then it is your duty to make such a finding, and not be influenced by your power to find a lesser offense. This provision is not designed to relieve you from the performance of an unpleasant duty. It is included to prevent a failure of justice if the evidence fails to prove the original charge but does justify a verdict for the lesser crime. Therefore, if you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence that the Defendant, Kristi Fulgham, acting alone or with another, did on or about May 10, 2003, unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously, of her malice aforethought, kill and murder Joey Fulgham, a human being, without authority of law and not in necessary self defense, then you shall find the Defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of Murder. Rather than granting S-3B, Fulgham argues the court should have granted instruction D-51, which reads: I have instructed you now on the crimes of capital murder and murder. These are distinct crimes. I instruct you that, if warranted by the evidence, you may find the defendant guilty of a crime lesser than capital murder. However, not withstanding this right, it is your duty to accept the law as given to you by the Court, and if the facts and law warrant a conviction of the crime of capital murder, then it is your duty to make such a finding uninfluenced by your power to find a lesser offense. This provision is included to prevent a failure of justice if the evidence fails to prove the original charge of capital murder but does justify a verdict for the lesser crime of murder. We previously have considered the State's acquit-first instruction and have found that it is not prohibited by the law of this State. [42] In Gray v. State , we ruled: This Court has considered such acquit-first instructions before. There is nothing in Mississippi jurisprudence that prohibits such an instruction. Carr [ v. State ], 655 So.2d [824] at 848 [(Miss. 1995)]. Jury (. . . instructions should be read in their entirety to determine if there was error). Walker [ v. State ], 671 So.2d [581] at 608 [(Miss.1995)] (quoting Chase [ v. State ], 645 So.2d [829] at 852 [(Miss.1994)]). Gray's claim that the instruction coerces jurors into convicting of capital murder even though they may believe him guilty only of simple murder is unfounded. This Court has held that such a result is not required or warranted from this instruction. Chase, 645 So.2d at 852. [43] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting instruction S-3B and refusing instruction D-51.