Opinion ID: 1624645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether neal was entitled to lesser-offense jury instructions of heat-of-passion manslaughter and desecration of a human corpse.

Text: ¶ 49. Neal argues that he was entitled to jury instructions on the lesser offense of heat-of-passion manslaughter, and on the crime of desecration of a human corpse codified at Mississippi Code Section 97-29-25(2). [5] The State prepared jury instructions on heat-of-passion manslaughter, but the trial court denied these instructions upon a determination that they were not warranted by the evidence. Neal did not request that the jury be instructed on heat-of-passion manslaughter, nor did he object when the trial court denied the State's instructions. ¶ 50. An error concerning the refusal of jury instructions `is procedurally preserved by the mere tendering of the instructions, suggesting that they are correct and asking the Court to submit them to the jury.' Rubenstein, 941 So.2d at 789 (quoting Edwards v. State, 737 So.2d 275, 310 (Miss.1999)). It is well established that when error is predicated upon the denial of a jury instruction requested by the defendant, the defendant need not make a contemporaneous objection to the denial in order to preserve the error for appeal. Green v. State, 884 So.2d 733, 736 (Miss.2004). But when a defendant argues that the trial court erroneously denied a jury instruction requested by the State, ordinarily the defendant must have objected to the denial in order to preserve the issue for appeal. See Reynolds v. State, 913 So.2d 290, 298 (Miss.2005). Without a defense objection to the denial of a jury instruction tendered by the State, we assume that the defendant was satisfied with the trial court's decision to rule adversely to the State. ¶ 51. Because Neal did not tender a heat-of-passion-manslaughter jury instruction to the trial court or object to the denial of the State's heat-of-passion-manslaughter jury instructions, he is procedurally barred from arguing on appeal that the jury should have been instructed on heat-of-passion manslaughter. Rubenstein, 941 So.2d at 789; Reynolds, 913 So.2d at 298. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, the trial court correctly found that the evidence did not support a heat-of-passion-manslaughter jury instruction. ¶ 52. Heat-of-passion manslaughter requires a state of violent and uncontrollable rage engendered by a blow or certain other provocation given, which will reduce a homicide from the grade of murder to that of manslaughter. Hobson v. State, 730 So.2d 20, 26-27 (Miss.1998) (quoting Tait v. State, 669 So.2d 85, 89 (Miss.1996)). Passion or anger suddenly aroused at the time by some immediate and reasonable provocation, by words or acts of one at the time. The term includes an emotional state of mind characterized by anger, rage, hatred, furious resentment or terror. Id. at 27. The passion felt by the person committing the act `should be superinduced by some insult, provocation, or injury, which would naturally and instantly produce, in the minds of ordinarily constituted men, the highest degree of exasperation.' Graham v. State, 582 So.2d 1014, 1018 (Miss.1991) (quoting Barnett v. State, 563 So.2d 1377, 1379 (Miss.1990)). ¶ 53. There was no evidence that Neal acted upon an immediate and reasonable provocation suddenly giving rise to passion or anger, as required by caselaw. Neal admitted to investigators that he and Cleveland had not quarreled on the day of the murder. The only evidence of Neal's motive to kill Cleveland came from Neal's suspicions that Cleveland possibly had been unfaithful to him and that A.B. was not his son. The evidence was that Neal had been harboring these suspicions for some time prior to the murder. Therefore, the evidence did not support a heat-of-passion-manslaughter jury instruction. ¶ 54. Neal did not preserve error in the failure to grant a jury instruction on desecration of a human corpse. Neither Neal nor the State requested an instruction on this crime. While Neal argues that the trial court had a duty sua sponte to instruct the jury on desecration of a human corpse, [a] trial court is not required to sua sponte instruct the jury or suggest jury instructions in addition to what the parties tender. Wilson v. State, 936 So.2d 357, 363 (Miss.2006) (citing Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239, 1254 (Miss. 1993) (overruled on other grounds)). A trial court cannot be held in error for not giving an instruction that was never requested. Harris, 861 So.2d at 1017. As Neal's argument is procedurally barred, we do not address his argument that the crime of desecration of a human corpse is a lesser offense of murder. This issue is without merit.