Opinion ID: 1152348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue # 3: Did the Circuit Judge Err by Refusing Most of Hemphill's Jury Instructions?

Text: The record indicates that the circuit judge proposed two of its own instructions; the prosecution proposed four; and Hemphill proposed ten. The judge then accepted all proposed instructions  with the exception of nine of Hemphill's. Hemphill contends that the judge's acceptance of its own and the prosecution's instructions and its refusal of his instructions constituted a reversible error. Hemphill does not explain why the judge's decision was erroneous; he merely notes that [t]o permit a trial judge to join the prosecution, or to disregard the instructions of the attorneys, is a `return to the tyranny of the King's Court.' Hemphill's curious logic is rejected for the simple reason that he failed to object to the judge's decision ( i.e., to accept its own and the prosecution's instructions and to refuse most of his). In other words, Hemphill's failure constituted a waiver. See Barnett v. State, 563 So.2d 1377 (Miss. 1990) (A general objection ... is tantamount to no objection.); Watson v. State, 483 So.2d 1326, 1329 (Miss. 1989) (The issue [is not] preserve[d] on appeal if no objection to instructions is made.). But this notwithstanding, the judge refused Hemphill's proposed instructions because they were repetitious of those which had already been accepted. This Court therefore affirms on this issue.