Opinion ID: 1922714
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in giving a supplemental instruction to the jury.

Text: ¶ 38. Approximately thirty minutes into jury deliberations, the jury sent the trial judge a written note which asked, Is Yasmin being charged with armed or attempted robbery? The trial judge initially said that he would tell the jury that they would simply have to refer to the instructions already given to them. Hughes raised no objection and simply asked that no single instruction be singled out. The state, however, saw no harm in the trial court referring the jury to Jury Instruction No. 2, which contained the elements of the crimes charged. The trial judge expressed reservations about referring to any specific jury instruction out of concern for reversible error on appeal. ¶ 39. After further discussion between counsel for both parties and the trial judge, the trial judge proposed the following response: You must consider all the instructions I have given you. The elements of the offense are defined in Instruction S-2. Both parties indicated their satisfaction with the trial judge's response. Yet, as the trial judge read his response aloud a second time, Hughes's counsel noticed the explicit reference to Instruction S-2 and objected. Hughes's counsel submitted that a proper response would be [t]he elements of the crimes charged are contained in the instructions. ¶ 40. Over Hughes's objection, the trial judge gave his proposed response, which referred the jury to Instruction S-2. The trial judge explained: . . . I don't think that [the proposed response] singles out any instruction to the prejudice of the Defendant in light of the fact that the only other two instructions we have are an accessory instruction and the failure to testify instruction. The response which the jury received stated: You must consider all of the instructions the Court has given to you. The elements of the crimes charged are contained in Instruction # 2. ¶ 41. A trial court has authority to give supplemental instructions to a jury and the decision to do so is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Mickell v. State, 735 So.2d 1031, 1033 (Miss.1999); see also Payton v. State, 897 So.2d 921, 956 (Miss.2003) (citing Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice Rule 3.10); Wright v. State, 512 So.2d 679, 681 (Miss.1987) (the law does not require a trial judge to become mute once the jury retires, particularly when the jury appears to be at a loss as to how to proceed). ¶ 42. Once the trial court receives a question from the jury, the judge's first responsibility is to determine whether any further instruction is necessary. Payton, 897 So.2d at 955 (quoting Girton v. State, 446 So.2d 570, 572 (Miss.1984)). No further instruction should be given unless necessary for clarity or to cover an omission. Payton, 897 So.2d at 955 (quoting Girton, 446 So.2d at 572). The trial judge must then be certain that he understands precisely what is meant by the jury's inquiry. Girton, 446 So.2d at 573. ¶ 43. This Court is particularly sensitive to the danger that a supplemental instruction might cause a jury to single out and focus upon the point there presented and give it undue importance. Wright, 512 So.2d at 681. Whether a single instruction has been singled out through supplemental instructions often turns on the manner in which the instruction is presented. Shaw v. State, 540 So.2d 26, 30 (Miss.1989). There is reversible error when the repetition gives such undue prominence to some principle or phase of the case as is calculated to impress it unduly on the jurors' minds, or results in an unfair statement of law in relation to accused's rights. Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227, 231 (Miss.1984) (quoting 23A C.J.S., Criminal Law, No. 1304). ¶ 44. Hughes argues that the trial judge impermissibly called attention to a specific instruction and failed to ascertain exactly what the jury was asking. Hughes asserts that by emphasizing the elements of the crime in Jury Instruction No. 2, the trial judge drew attention from Jury Instructions No. 3 and No. 4. ¶ 45. Jury Instruction No. 2 set forth the elements of the crimes of armed robbery and aggravated assault. Jury Instruction No. 3 stated that Hughes may be held responsible for the acts and conduct of other persons if he deliberately and voluntarily participated in the commission of the crimes. Jury Instruction No. 3 further explained that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every element of the offense had been committed by some person and that Hughes voluntarily participated in the crime. Jury Instruction No. 4 stated that the state has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that the jury must not hold anything against Hughes based on the fact that he did not testify. ¶ 46. Hughes analogizes this case to Haynes, in which this Court held the supplemental instruction to be error. Haynes, 451 So.2d at 231. Yet, in Haynes, the trial judge responded to the jury's question by not only calling the jury's attention to two specific instructions, but inviting their attention to a specific portion of one of the instructions. Id. at 229-30. Additionally, the supplemental instruction in Haynes likely had accentuated an already erroneous instruction. Id. at 231. ¶ 47. We find that the jury's question required no additional inquiry from the trial judge. Furthermore, the trial judge's supplemental instruction did not place undue prominence on any one principle or phase of the case so as to cause prejudice to Hughes. Jury Instruction No. 2 contained the elements of all the crimes for which Hughes was charged. Additionally, the trial judge instructed the jury to consider all the instructions given to them. See Wright, 512 So.2d at 681 (the problem normally associated with supplemental jury instructions was adequately addressed by additional language instructing the jury to consider the supplemental instruction along with their other instructions). ¶ 48. Accordingly, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in giving the supplemental instruction.