Opinion ID: 1133476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the trial court err by failing to give Webster's jury instruction on accident?

Text: ¶ 12. Webster next argues that the Court of Appeals erred in finding no error in the trial court's refusal to give his jury instruction D-2, [1] which was an accident instruction. Webster argues that there was an evidentiary basis for such an instruction to be given, and therefore the trial court erred in refusing to give it. However, Webster fails to point out where such evidence is contained in the record, nor does he cite any authority in support of his position. ¶ 13. On this issue, the Court of Appeals found: In the case at bar, no facts or evidence appeared in the testimony that the killing occurred both by self-defense and by accident. Webster testified that since Rosebur was outside with a knife, he grabbed a butter knife when he attempted to leave, and that the two of them began to chase each other around. Webster stated that realizing that the butter knife would not protect him, he grabbed a stick that was on the ground. Webster stated that as they were fighting each other, the next thing he saw was blood coming from Rosebur's chest. Webster testified that Rosebur stabbed himself during the altercation; however, testimony from Curtis and the state pathologist contradicted Webster's account of what actually took place. Curtis testified that as he was standing in the doorway, Webster walked past him with a butcher knife behind his back, approached Rosebur from behind, and stabbed him in the neck. Dr. Stephen Hayne, the medical examiner, testified that Rosebur's fatal stab wound would have been consistent with being stabbed from behind if the assailant was right-handed. Dr. Hayne stated: [T]he stab wound to the decedent traveled slightly to the left and normally stab wounds, if they're being inflicted from the front by a right-handed person, usually travels slightly to the left at approximately 10 degrees as well as going downward at approximately 60 degrees. So it would be consistent with a stab wound from behind. Moreover, on cross-examination, Dr. Hayne testified that he did not believe that Rosebur could have stabbed himself. His testimony, in pertinent part, reads as follows: Q: And could the fatal woundI'll ask a hypothesis. If Bennie Rosebur had a knife in this hand and it was hit with such great force, could it have been forced into him at such great force that the wound would have been caused by the knife in this hand? A: The only way I could conceive of that occurring, if someone took his hand and then drove his hand into his chest. Q: All right. Could they have hit it with such great force with say a stick to have hit it to go in? A: I do not believe so, no. Q: You don't think that it's possible to hit someone with such force that you could drive it into them like a stake? A: It is possible to strike a person with enough force to drive a hand-holding knife into the body. However, in this case, I would expect to see the external injuries on the right upper extremity, the right hand, the fingers of the right hand, the forearm of the right upper extremity or the right arm indicating that that type or force had been applied to the extremity allowing for the stab wound of the chest as you describe, and I did not see that. Therefore, it is this Court's finding that there was no evidentiary basis capable of supporting a factual finding that Webster had accidentally stabbed Rosebur under such circumstances, and the requested jury instruction was properly denied. Webster v. State, 755 So.2d at 461-62 (Miss.Ct.App.1999). After a thorough review of the record, we find that there was not a sufficient evidentiary basis to support giving an accident instruction, and therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly decided this issue. We affirm on this issue.