Opinion ID: 1707183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: whether the trial court erred in limiting evans to six jury instructions during the sentencing phase.

Text: ś 365. Evans argues that the trial court erred in imposing a six-instruction limit on the defense during the sentencing phase of trial, forcing him to withdraw other instructions regarding weighing, deliberations or things of that nature in a sentencing phase in a capital case. Evans argues the trial court imposed the limit after misinterpreting Unif. Crim. R. of Cir. Ct. Prac. 5.03. At the time of trial, Rule 5.03 [13] in pertinent part provided: The attorneys may submit no more than six instructions on the substantive law of the case to which the opposing party shall dictate into the record the specific objections. ś 366. In Young v. State, 451 So.2d 208, 211 (Miss.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 860, 105 S.Ct. 192, 83 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984), this Court addressed the six-instruction limit contained in Rule 5.03 and held that the number of instructions submitted to the court and the jury lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who may limit or expand for good cause shown. There, we held that the six-instruction limit is a numerical beginning point ... [not] an inflexible rule.... Id. However, an abuse of discretion by the trial court in limiting the number of instructions alone is insufficient to require reversal by this Court. In Shaw v. State, 540 So.2d 26, 29-30 (Miss.1989), this Court held that failure to follow the dictates of Rule 5.03, Crim.R.Cir.Ct.Prac., will not lead to reversal absent actual prejudice to the defendant. Id. (citing Carter v. State, 493 So.2d 327, 331 (Miss.1986)). ś 367. When reviewing the submission or omission of jury instructions, this Court has repeatedly held that this Court reviews the instructions as a whole, with no one instruction taken out of context. Heidel v.State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991). The Evans jury was given five sentencing instructions, each of which extensively instructed the jury on capital sentencing procedure. Evans' argument that the six-instruction limit denied the jury instructions regarding weighing, deliberations or things of that nature in a sentencing phase in a capital case is without merit. The jury was amply instructed regarding the weighing and consideration of the evidence presented at trial. The jury was also extensively instructed as to the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Moreover, a review of the instructions excluded by the trial court reveals that the subject matter of those instructions was addressed by instructions given by the trial court or contained incorrect statements of the law. ś 368. In Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991), this Court held that [a] defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, Murphy, 566 So.2d at 1206; Young v. State, 451 So.2d 208, 210 (Miss.1984); however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. Murphy, 566 So.2d at 1206; United States v. Robinson, 700 F.2d 205, 211 (5th Cir.1983), appeal after remand, 713 F.2d 110 (1984); Davis v. State, 431 So.2d 468, 475 (Miss.1983)(A trial court is not required to give instructions which are covered by other instructions although the language may differ.). This issue is without merit.