Opinion ID: 1898475
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the Trial Court Err in Failing to Grant Instructions as to Simple or Aggravated Assault?

Text: Monroe was indicted for armed robbery. The jury was instructed concerning the lesser-included offenses of robbery and petit, rather than grand, larceny since there was no evidence as to the gold necklace's value. Here Monroe argues that the trial court erroneously denied his request for lesser-included offense instructions as to simple and aggravated assault. Monroe relies on Presley v. State, 321 So.2d 309 (Miss. 1975) to argue that assault is a lesser-included offense of robbery. Presley was decided on the basis of a previous assault and battery statute. The trial court agreed with defense counsel that assault is a lesser-included offense of robbery, but stated, I just don't believe this is a proper instruction on the facts of this case. The cases are legion in this Court holding that lesser-included offense instructions must be warranted by the evidence. Messer v. State, 483 So.2d 338 (Miss. 1986); Lee v. State, 469 So.2d 1225 (Miss. 1985); Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308 (Miss. 1984); Stevens v. State, 458 So.2d 726 (Miss. 1984); Lacy v. State, 432 So.2d 1205 (Miss. 1983); Colburn v. State, 431 So.2d 1111 (Miss. 1983); Johnson v. State, 416 So.2d 383 (Miss. 1982). This Court has stated that the evidence in a particular case generally warrants granting a lesser-included offense instruction if a rational or a reasonable jury could find the defendant not guilty of the principal offense charged in the indictment, yet guilty of the lesser-included offense. See Harveston v. State, 493 So.2d 365, 374 (Miss. 1986); Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1984). See also, Harper v. State, 478 So.2d 1017 (Miss. 1985); Harbin v. State, 478 So.2d 796 (Miss. 1985); Lee v. State, 469 So.2d 1225 (Miss. 1985). Though the trial court did not explain it, its reasoning clearly was based on Monroe's evidence. Monroe's only witness was alleged accomplice Jethro Jones. Jones testified that he and Monroe had gone to the house at the corner of Douglas and Collier Streets intending to rip off the dope house. It is unclear whether or not Monroe and Jones intended to trick anyone out of money when he went to the house, but Jones stated that was the reason he initially purchased the badge at a pawn shop in New Orleans. Judy Spates actually gave $25 to Monroe for some marijuana before he flashed the badge and told her she was busted, Jones testified. Regardless of what they might originally have intended, Jones' testimony showed that he and Monroe actually tricked Ms. Spates out of money at the dope house. Thus, Monroe's own evidence implicates him in the crime of larceny by fraud or possibly false pretenses. See Russell v. State, 391 So.2d 987, 990 (Miss. 1980). Even considering the proof in the light most favorable to the accused, and keeping in mind that the jury may not be required to believe any evidence offered by the state, Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d at 801, Monroe's own proof was that Judy Spates was tricked out of $25. This is not a case where the state's proof could have been disbelieved. Here the jury would have had to disbelieve both the defense and the prosecution witnesses. It would seem that no rational or reasonable juror could have convicted Monroe of merely simple or aggravated assault. The only question for the jury was whether Monroe and Jones took the money by force or merely by trick. We agree that the evidence did not support a lesser-included offense instruction on assault. There is no error.