Opinion ID: 864434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: proffered instruction d-2

Text: ¶13. Rosenthall alleges that the trial court erred in refusing his proffered jury instruction D-2. ¶14. Proposed jury instruction D-2 is reprinted as follows: Members of the jury, during the course of this trial, defense counsel cross-examined James Pickens about the fact that he had entered a plea of guilty prior to this trial to Felony Robbery and Felony Manslaughter in this case and had been sentenced to Twenty-Five years (25) for the Robbery and Twenty years (20) for the Manslaughter to run concurrent t o e a c h o t h e r . However, you are cautioned that you must not consider the fact that James Pickens has been convicted of robbery and manslaughter in this case as substantive evidence that Christopher Rosenthall is guilty of the charges for which he is on trial today. ¶15. Jury instruction D-6 states: An accomplice is someone who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent with the principal offender unites in the commission of a crime. James Pickens has admitted to you that he was an accomplice to the murder of Mr. Rogers. The Court instructs you that the testimony of an admitted accomplice should be viewed by you with great care, caution and suspicion and you should give it such weight and credit as you deem it is entitled. ¶16. The record reflects that Rosenthall was attempting to impeach State’s witness James Pickens with the fact of his conviction of crimes arising from the murder of the victim for the purpose of proving bias or interest in the case. Case law stipulates that “when defense counsel elicits the testimony complained of any valid objections were waived by the defendant.” Warren v. State, 369 So.2d 483, 486 (Miss.1979). 6 ¶17. Additionally, no authority is cited by Rosenthall which alleges that he is entitled to have a cautionary instruction given concerning the impeachment of evidence that he elicited. While D-2 was not given, D-6 was given. We find jury instruction D-6 sufficient. The trial court instructed the jury to regard the accomplice’s testimony with great suspicion and to consider it with caution. That is the essence of proposed instruction D-2. Hence, the jury was properly instructed as to the law. Wheeler v. State, 560 So.2d 171, 173 (Miss. 1990). No further instruction was necessary.