Opinion ID: 2537633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in granting jury instruction S-5.

Text: ¶ 37. Fulgham argues that the trial court erred in granting jury instruction S-5, which defined the statutory phrase while engaged in the commission of to include the actions of Defendant leading up to the robbery, the actual robbery and/or the flight from the scene of the robbery. Fulgham argues that this instruction confused the jury regarding the State's alternative theories and further distorted the unanimity requirement. ¶ 38. However, we find this issue to be a proper instruction pursuant to this Court's recent ruling in Goff v. State , in which we held: . . . the intent to rob, which is required to prove the underlying felony of robbery, can be shown from the facts surrounding the crime. Walker v. State, 913 So.2d 198, 224 (Miss.2005) (quoting Lynch v. State, 877 So.2d 1254, 1266 (Miss.2004)). Mississippi recognizes the one continuous transaction rationale in capital cases. West v. State, 553 So.2d 8, 13 (Miss.1989). We have construed our capital murder statute and held that the underlying crime begins where an indictable attempt is reached. . . . Pickle v. State, 345 So.2d 623, 626 (Miss. 1977). An indictment charging a killing occurring `while engaged in the commission of' one of the enumerated felonies includes the actions of the defendant leading up to the felony, the attempted felony, and flight from the scene of the felony. Turner v. State, 732 So.2d 937, 950 (Miss.1999) (quoting West, 553 So.2d at 13). [41] Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting instruction S-5.