Opinion ID: 1585598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Lower Court Err in Failing to Grant a Peremptory Instruction?

Text: This appeal here is confined to the question of whether the trial court erred in failing to grant his request for a peremptory instruction at the close of all the evidence. The statutory elements of the crime of murder as found in Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(a) (Supp. 1986) are the killing of a human being 1) without authority of law, and 2) done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed, or any other human being. Alford's main point on appeal is that his version of the events leading to the shooting required the granting of his peremptory instruction because his version was the only one worthy of belief. This, of course, suggests our familiar rule that where the defendant is the sole eyewitness, his version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge. Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 209, 147 So. 481, 482 (1933). The record is clear that there were a number of witnesses to the shooting who contradicted Alford's testimony. The Weathersby rule has no application here and the trial court correctly denied the requested peremptory instruction on this ground. We also do not find that the state's case fails to pass muster under our general review of the sufficiency of the evidence. See Peoples v. State, 501 So.2d 424 (Miss. 1987); Bunkley v. State, 495 So.2d 1 (Miss. 1986); Weeks v. State, 493 So.2d 1280 (Miss. 1986); Jenkins v. State, 483 So.2d 1330 (Miss. 1986); Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952 (Miss. 1985). We find no merit to this assignment.