Opinion ID: 859592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: defense instruction d-10

Text: Moss asks this Court to reverse and remand this case because the trial court erred in refusing defense instruction D-10. Moss argues that this instruction should have been given because it instructs the jury on the standard of proof the State is required to carry before Moss can be found guilty. We find that the standard of proof was sufficiently covered in the instructions given; accordingly, we find no merit to this argument. We first address the fact that no objection was made by Moss when the instruction was initially refused by the court. This issue is procedurally barred. This Court has repeatedly held that the error, if any, is waived if no contemporaneous objection is made. Foster v. State, 639 So. 2d 1263, 1270 (Miss. 1994). Moss’ failure to object precludes us from addressing this issue on appeal. Nevertheless, despite the procedural bar, the substantive merits of this issue do not warrant us to reverse this case. This Court does not review jury instructions in isolation. Eakes v. State, 665 So. 2d 852, 871 (Miss. 1995). All instructions are to be read together and if the jury is fully and fairly charged by other instructions, the refusal of any similar instruction does not constitute reversible error. Eakes, 665 So. 2d at 871. Refusal of a repetitive instruction is proper. Id. After reviewing all of the jury instructions, we are satisfied that the jury was fully and fairly charged. We think that jury instructions D-8 and S-1 sufficiently addressed the standard of proof the State was required to prove. Giving instruction D-10 would have been merely repetitive, and the trial court was correct in excluding it.