Opinion ID: 1819859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether delashmit was entitled to a lesser-offense instruction.

Text: ¶ 18. Delashmit argues that the jury should have been given a lesser-offense instruction on indecent exposure. [3] [A] criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed regarding any offense carrying a lesser punishment arising out of a common nucleus of operative fact with the scenario giving rise to the charge laid in the indictment. Green v. State, 884 So.2d 733, 737 (Miss.2004). See also Griffin v. State, 533 So.2d 444 (Miss.1988). However, a lesser-included-offense instruction, or a lesser-offense instruction, should be granted only if there is an evidentiary basis for such instruction in the record. Griffin, 533 So.2d at 447. The test is ultimately whether this Court  can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the accused, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn in favor of the accused from the evidence, that no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense (and conversely not guilty of at least one essential element of the principal charge). Id. (citing Harper v. State, 478 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Miss.1985)). ¶ 19. Delashmit was not entitled to the lesser-offense instruction on misdemeanor indecent exposure. Based on the overwhelming evidence, no reasonable jury could have found Delashmit not guilty of any element of the principal charge. The victim, an eight-year-old girl, testified that Delashmit had offered her fifty dollars and had exposed his middle spot to her. Delashmit also confessed to both Sheriff Johnson and Investigator Franks that he had offered the child victim fifty dollars to have sex with him and had shown her his penis. ¶ 20. Therefore, for the reasons stated, this second issue is without merit.