Opinion ID: 1833605
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant adams's requested jury instructions as to lesser included offenses.

Text: ¶ 19. Adams assigns as error the trial judge's refusal to grant jury instructions D10, D11, D12, and D13 which addressed a supposedly lesser-included offense: simple assault. These proposed instructions stated: D10 The Court instructs the jury that if you find that the state has failed to prove any one of the essential elements of the crime of Capital Rape, you must find the Defendant not guilty and you will proceed with your deliberations to decide whether the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the lesser crime of simple assault. D11 The Court instructs the jury that if you find that the state has failed to prove any one of the essential elements of the crime of fondling, you must find Defendant not guilty and you will proceed with your deliberations to decide whether the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the lesser crime of simple assault. D12 The Court instructs the jury that if you find that the state has failed to prove any one of the essential elements of the crime of attempted sexual battery, you must find the Defendant not guilty and you will proceed with your deliberations to decide whether the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the lesser crime of simple assault. D13 The Court instructs the jury that if you find from the evidence, if any, beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knowingly or purposely injured or attempted to cause bodily injury to [the victim] then you shall find the Defendant guilty of simple assault. ¶ 20. The standard of review employed by this Court in reviewing challenges to the grant or denial of jury instructions is that of viewing the instructions as a whole. Humphrey v. State, 759 So.2d 368, 380 (Miss.2000) As this Court stated in Humphrey: A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. Id. (quoting Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991) (citations omitted)). Further, [e]ven though based on meager evidence and highly unlikely, a defendant is entitled to have every legal defense he asserts to be submitted as a factual issue for determination by the jury under proper instruction of the court. Where a defendant's proffered instruction has an evidentiary basis, properly states the law, and is the only instruction presenting his theory of the case, refusal to grant it constitutes reversible error. Id. (quoting Hester v. State, 602 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss.1992) (citations omitted)). ¶ 21. Whether simple assault is a lesser included offense of the crimes of capital rape, fondling, or attempted sexual battery is immaterial, as this Court has held in Gangl that: the defendant may request an instruction regarding any offense carrying a lesser punishment if the lesser offense arises out of a nucleus of operative fact common with the factual scenario giving rise to the charge laid in the indictment. Gangl v. State, 539 So.2d 132, 136 (Miss.1989)(emphasis added)(citing Griffin v. State, 533 So.2d 444, 447-48 (Miss. 1988)). ¶ 22. However, there must also be an evidentiary basis in the record warranting an instruction on simple assault. Turner v. State, 732 So.2d 937, 949 (Miss.1999)(quoting Ormond v. State, 599 So.2d 951, 960 (Miss.1992)). Indeed, a lesser included offense instruction should be granted unless the trial judgeand ultimately this Courtcan say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the accused and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn in favor of the accused from the evidence, that no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense (and conversely not guilty of at least one essential element of the principal charge.) Humphrey, 759 So.2d at 380 (quoting Harper v. State, 478 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Miss. 1985)). To warrant the lesser included offense instruction, a defendant must point to some evidence in the record from which a jury could reasonably find him not guilty of the crime with which he was charged and at the same time find him guilty of a lesser included offense. Toliver v. State, 600 So.2d 186, 192 (Miss.1992)(citing Whitehurst v. State, 540 So.2d 1319, 1327 (Miss.1989); Harper v. State, 478 So.2d at 1021; Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d 793, 799 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 23. Adams argues that his admission that he slapped his daughter and her corroboration of that fact are enough to warrant an instruction on simple assault. After careful review of the evidence, we conclude that no rational basis appears upon which the jury would have found Adams guilty of simple assault and not capital rape, fondling, or attempted sexual battery. ¶ 24. A plethora of evidence existed to support the conviction of Adams of capital rape, fondling and attempted sexual battery. Numerous witnesses testified, including the victim and an eyewitness to the actual rape. ¶ 25. The most compelling evidence was presented by the victim herself. The victim, Adams's daughter, testified that her father took her into his bedroom and locked the door. Adams showed her a pornographic picture, asking her if she was a woman like the one in the picture. She testified that [h]e said he was going to treat me like a woman. When she tried to leave the room, Adams grabbed her and threw her on the bed. He then ordered her to remove her clothes, which she did. Adams then undressed. ¶ 26. The victim then testified in graphic detail about sexual acts which Adams performed on her. Adams then threatened his daughter if she told anyone: He told me if I ever told anybody he would beat me, and he meant beat me to death. The victim testified that similar incidents had happened eight or nine times before. ¶ 27. Adams's son, who witnessed the incident, also testified. Kellie Adams testified that her youngest son told her of the incident as soon as she arrived home. When she confronted her daughter, she also told her of her father's actions. Kellie examined her daughter's vaginal area which she described as being really red. Kellie then confronted Adams who called the children liars and threatened to kill them all. ¶ 28. Kellie testified as to several letters that Adams had sent to her and her daughter. In one letter, Adams admitted being on top of his daughter and showing her the pornographic picture. In a second letter, Adams admitted telling his daughter that he was going to treat her like an adult. In the letter, Adams wrote: if somehow I really did do what you said I did, please understand this, I don't remember it at all. Honestly, I don't. And if I did, please forgive me. Please.... ¶ 29. Jo Jones, a sexual assault nurse who examined the victim, testified that the victim's hymen was torn. This tear was consistent with penetration by a penis, finger, or other object. ¶ 30. The social worker involved in the case stated that she had interviewed the victim on at least four separate occasions. The victim told her the same story each time. The victim told her that Adams had entered her vaginally and attempted to enter her anally. ¶ 31. Further, from the instructions given by the trial court, it is clear that the jury was adequately instructed that if the State did not prove every element of each crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, they were to return a verdict of not guilty. As noted earlier, this Court views jury instructions as a whole. Humphrey, 759 So.2d at 380. ¶ 32. Jury instruction P1 outlines the elements of capital rape. It also charges the jury that [i]f the State has failed to prove any one or more of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find the defendant, DAVID ADAMS, not guilty. P1 clearly instructs the jury that every element of capital rape must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before Adams can be found guilty of the crime. ¶ 33. Jury instruction P2 outlines the elements of fondling. P2 states that if the State fails to prove any one or more of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find the defendant, DAVID ADAMS, not guilty. Again the jury is clearly instructed that if the State does not prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt, it is to find Adams not guilty. ¶ 34. Jury Instruction P3 outlines the elements of attempted sexual battery. It also states that if the State fails to prove any one or more of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find the defendant, DAVID ADAMS, not guilty. Once again the jury is instructed that the State must prove every element of attempted sexual battery before it can find Adams guilty of that crime. ¶ 35. Finally, jury instruction C-2 reads as follows: The law presumes every person charged with the commission of a crime to be innocent. This presumption places upon the State of Mississippi the burden of proving the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence attends the Defendant throughout the trial and prevails at its close unless overcome by evidence which satisfies the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is not required to prove his innocence. The burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every material element of the crime with which the Defendant is charged is upon the State of Mississippi. If the State has failed to prove any material element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you are to find the Defendant not guilty. (emphasis added). Here the jury is told not once, but four times that the State must prove every element or each crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt before it can find Adams guilty of any crime. ¶ 36. There is no evidence in this record that Adams assaulted the victim but did not at the same time rape, fondle, and commit attempted sexual battery upon her. The proof was so overwhelming in this case that no reasonable jury could have found Adams not guilty of any of the crimes charged. The evidence did not support an instruction for simple assault. This issue is without merit.