Opinion ID: 1914410
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury the proper burden of proof in a circumstantial evidence case.

Text: This Court has said many times that a circumstantial evidence instruction is not required unless the State's case is based wholly on circumstantial evidence. Edwards v. State, 413 So.2d 1007 (Miss. 1982); Weathers v. State, 237 So.2d 441 (Miss. 1970). In the case sub judice, there was direct evidence that the appellant was in the company of the gun-wielding robber at the scene of the crime contrary to his alibi defense. There was further testimony that his automobile was seen speeding away from the scene of the crime; he was arrested approximately two hours later driving the automobile which was used in the robbery, and the gun which was used in the course of the robbery belonged to appellant by his own admission. From these facts, it was reasonable for the jury to infer from them that the appellant was a willing participant in and aided and abetted the robber by carrying him to the scene of the crime, participating as a front man by asking for change and aiding the robber in his escape as well as furnishing him with the gun with which to commit the robbery. As stated earlier, appellant contended that he had never been to LeFleur's and asserted an alibi as a defense.