Opinion ID: 1658871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the trial court err in refusing to give jury instruction D-22?

Text: Appellant's separate form of the verdict instruction was refused because it was repetitive of jury instruction S-6. Appellant now argues the trial court placed undue influence on the forms of the verdict by listing the form of a not guilty verdict third in a list of three. The often-repeated rule of law in Mississippi is that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in analyzing whether they should be granted or denied. Lee v. State, 469 So.2d 1225, 1232 (Miss. 1985); Jordan v. State, 464 So.2d 475, 479 (Miss. 1985); Roberts v. State, 458 So.2d 719, 721 (Miss. 1984). Furthermore, if the jury is fully and fairly instructed by other instructions, the refusal of a similar instruction is not reversible error. Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445, 461 (Miss. 1984); Barr v. State, 359 So.2d 334, 338 (Miss. 1978). The record reflects that the jury was fully and fairly instructed concerning the forms of the verdicts from which they chose. Therefore, there was no reversible error.