Opinion ID: 1713224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in refusing to grant instruction d-9 on accessory after the fact?

Text: ¶ 16. Mangum argues that the trial court erred in denying him an accessory after the fact instruction. The elements of accessory after the fact are that (1) a completed felony has been committed; (2) the accused concealed, received, relieved, aided or assisted a felon, knowing that such person had committed a felony; and (3) such assistance or aid was rendered with the intent to enable such felon to escape or avoid arrest, trial, conviction or punishment after the commission of such felony. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-1-5 (1999). One cannot be both a principal in the crime and an accessory after the fact. Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 534 (Miss. 1996) (citations omitted). ¶ 17. As stated above, Bracey and Hobson both testified that Mangum took part in designing the attempted robbery and escape, and Bracey's testimony placed Mangum as the getaway driver. Their testimony was corroborated to some extent by Taylor and Shows. However, in his defense, Mangum took the stand and denied having any involvement in the crime. According to Mangum, he was present when Bracey and Hobson planned the attempted robbery but told them that he didn't want any part of that. Mangum testified that after Bracey and Hobson attempted the robbery, Bracey came to a nearby basketball court where Mangum was playing basketball and informed Mangum that the package store operator had been shot in the course of the crime. Mangum testified that after he learned of the shooting, he left the scene without assisting anyone: (Direct examination of Ted Mangum) BY MR. DUGGAN [Mangum's attorney]: Q. Ricky told you he shot the man and ran; is that correct? A. That's what he said. Q. After he told you that, what, if anything, did you do? A. I left. I didn't want any part of it. By Mangum's own testimony, he did nothing to assist or intentionally conceal Bracey or Hobson from arrest after the attempted robbery had been completed. ¶ 18. All of the testimony which implicates Mangum as the getaway driver also implicates him as a principal in the crime. Both Bracey and Hobson testified that driving the getaway vehicle was Mangum's designated role. In fact, being a getaway driver clearly necessitates prior planning and involvement in advance of the crime by such driver. The only testimony otherwise was Mangum's own in which he claimed that he was never involved in planning any crime and that he never assisted either Hobson or Bracey afterwards in any way. [L]esser offense instructions should not be granted indiscriminately, and only where there is an evidentiary basis in the record. Gangl v. State, 539 So.2d 132, 136 (Miss.1989). The trial court did not err in refusing the requested instruction on accessory after the fact, as there was no adequate evidentiary basis in the record for such instruction. Thus, this issue is without merit.