Opinion ID: 1919650
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Additional Relevant Facts and Discussion

Text: Regarding the attempted capital rape charge, the trial court gave the following jury instruction: As to the charge of attempted capital rape, if you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that LEN HENDERSON was over the age of eighteen years and attempted to insert his penis in the vagina of LAURA MAY [1] , a female child under the age of fourteen years, then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of guilty as to Count III of the indictment. Instruction S-1. Henderson lodged a timely objection to this instruction on the ground that it does not provide the elements of attempted rape. He is correct. The elements required to prove attempted capital rape are: a design and endeavor to rape one less than fourteen years old by one at least eighteen years old, an overt act toward the commission of rape, and failure to complete the rape or prevention of completion. See Harden v. State, 465 So.2d 321, 323 (Miss. 1983) (citing West v. State, 437 So.2d 1212, 1214 (Miss. 1983) and Miss. Code Ann. § 97-1-7 (1972)). Instruction S-1 does not mention failure or prevention of completion. The State argues that the jury obviously ... found from the evidence that [Henderson] failed in his attempt to penetrate Laura, therefore there is no error. However, the jury could have believed that the rape was not completed because Henderson abandoned his attempt, rather than believing Laura's testimony that she slid from beneath Henderson each time he climbed on top of her. A jury finding of abandonment would have precluded a conviction if the trial court had given a proper instruction. In Ross v. State, 601 So.2d 872, 874 (Miss. 1992), this Court held: The crime of attempt to commit an offense occurs when a person shall design and endeavor to commit an offense, and shall do any overt act toward the commission thereof, but shall fail therein, or shall be prevented from committing the same... . Miss Code Ann. § 97-1-7 (1974). Put otherwise, attempt consists of 1) an intent to commit a particular crime; 2) a direct ineffectual act done toward its commission, and 3) failure to consummate its commission. Pruitt v. State, 528 So.2d 828, 830 (Miss. 1988) (attempted rape was voluntarily abandoned by defendant when he told victim she was free to leave); accord Edwards v. State, 500 So.2d 967, 969 (Miss. 1986); Bucklew v. State, 206 So.2d 200, 202 (Miss. 1968). Id. at 874. It is axiomatic that a jury's verdict may not stand upon uncontradicted fact alone. The fact must be found via jury instructions correctly identifying the elements of the offense under the proper standards. Turner v. State, 573 So.2d 1340, 1343 (Miss. 1990). Where the jury had incorrect or incomplete instructions regarding the law, our review task is nigh unto impossible and reversal is generally required. Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743, 757 n. 9 (Miss. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1098, 105 S.Ct. 607, 83 L.Ed.2d 716 (1989). The jury could have concluded from the evidence presented that: Henderson could have overpowered the child, had he so intended, given his physical superiority; or the Mays fabricated the allegations against Henderson in retaliation for his ending his relationship with the child's mother, as the record indicates; or Henderson offered the child money in exchange for sex, but did not force the issue after she declined. The State provided the jury with sufficient evidence to find Henderson guilty of attempted capital rape. However, the lack of any instruction setting forth all elements of attempted capital rape requires this Court to reverse and remand. This Court has held that the jury instructions, taken as a whole, are to be considered together when deciding the sufficiency of the court's instructions on the law. As long as any one instruction set forth the necessary elements of an attempted capital rape according to the statute, this Court could affirm on this assignment. However, no instruction set forth the three elements stated in the statute of (1) a design or endeavor to commit an offense, (2) an overt act toward commission thereof, and (3) a failure to consummate the act. Neither the trial court's instruction S-1 nor the defense instruction D-12, which is a burden of proof instruction, meet this statutory requirement.