Opinion ID: 2536023
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred by denying defense instruction d-7.

Text: ¶ 35. Clark argues that the trial court erred by refusing Jury Instruction D-7. The instruction stated: The Court instructs the jury that you must be convinced by the evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged abuse of [Hailey] was inflicted and caused by Wanda Clark on the dates as charged in the indictment, and if you can determine from the evidence that the alleged abuse of [Hailey] could have been or was caused by something else other than the intentional acts of Wanda Clark then you shall find Wanda Clark not guilty of the charges against her. Clark contends that she was entitled to this instruction, because it was the only jury instruction that articulated her theory of the case. ¶ 36. This Court reads jury instructions as a whole to determine whether the jury was fully and fairly instructed according to the applicable law. Davis v. State, 18 So.3d 842, 847 (Miss. 2009). In other words, if all instructions taken as a whole fairly, but not necessarily perfectly, announce the applicable rules of law, no error results. Id. An accused has a fundamental right to have her theory of the case presented to the jury, but the right is not absolute. Id. 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. Spires v. State, 10 So.3d 477, 483 (Miss.2009) (quoting Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991)). ¶ 37. Clark argues that the jury instructions were deficient without instruction D-7. We find that any need for instruction D-7 was obviated by the elements instruction, which stated, in part: The Defendant, WANDA CLARK, has been charged by a multi-count indictment with two counts of Felonious Abuse/Battery of a Child. In Count II, if you find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) on or about January 9, 2005 in Coahoma County, Mississippi the Defendant, WANDA CLARK, did individually or while aiding and abetting another, (2) unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously whip, strike, or otherwise abuse or mutilate a child, [Hailey], (3) who was fifteen (15) years of age, (4) causing bodily injury by beating [Hailey] with an extension cord about the arms, legs, back and torso, and (5) said abuse was not in self-defense or to prevent bodily harm to a third party, then you shall find the Defendant, WANDA CLARK, guilty in Count II of Felonious Abuse/Battery of a Child. If the State failed to prove any one or more of the above elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find the defendant not guilty in Count II. The instruction recited identical elements pertaining to Count III. The elements instruction required the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark had caused the injuries. Therefore, the instruction fully informed the jury that, if it believed someone else had caused the injuries, or if it did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark had caused the injuries, then it was to acquit. The Court finds that the trial court did not err by refusing instruction D-7.