Opinion ID: 1932154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: improper restraints on development and instruction on the defense of necessity

Text: Corley first contends that the trial court erred in not allowing his counsel to cross-examine Deputy William Carver, the Carroll County Jailer, in regard to alleged threats made against the defendant subsequent to Corley's escape. The trial judge had sustained the State's objection to this line of questioning on the grounds that the jailer's conduct after Corley's escape was irrelevant to the issue of Corley's state of mind at the time of his escape. Corley claims that his inability to cross-examine Carver on this matter severely impaired his defense. There is simply no merit to Corley's argument. What happened after Corley's escape cannot possibly be relevant to the determination of Corley's intent at the time of his escape. This Court has stated repeatedly that a trial judge has considerable discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, and unless that discretion is so abused as to be prejudicial to the accused, the judge's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. Burt v. State, 493 So.2d 1325, 1326 (Miss. 1986); Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195, 1207 (Miss. 1985). In the instant case, there was no prejudice to the defendant because of the judge's ruling. Corley also claims that the trial judge erred in refusing a jury instruction defining the distinction between intention to escape lawful imprisonment and intention to escape an impending danger. Although Corley's instruction was refused, the trial court gave its own instruction regarding the defense of necessity, as follows: The Defendant has raised the defense of escape because of necessity. To constitute such a defense, there must be (1) immediate threat of serious bodily harm to prisoner; (2) prisoner has no time in which to make complaint to authorities about his danger; (3) force or violence is not used in escape; and (4) prisoner must intend to report immediately to proper authorities when he attains position of safety. If you find this has been an escape by necessity, then you should find the Defendant not guilty. Corley was allowed to present his defense of escape because of necessity. The trial court instructed the jury on that defense. In light of Corley's testimony that he intended to stay out of jail [a]s long as I could, I reckon, the jury was justified in rejecting Corley's asserted defense. There is no merit to this assignment of error.