Opinion ID: 1126392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: whether the circuit court erred by refusing to grant defense instructions d-1, d-2, d-4, d-5, d-7, d-8, d-10, and d-12

Text: ¶ 37. Jones asserts the trial court erred when it refused to give eight of his requested jury instructions. In Higgins v. State, 725 So.2d 220, 223 (Miss. 1998), this Court summarized Mississippi's law on jury instructions, in relevant part, as follows: Jury instructions are to be read together and taken as a whole with no one instruction taken out of context. 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 fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. This Court finds the circuit court did not err in refusing the eight instructions. A review of the record indicates that all instructions were fairly covered in other instructions, as follows: Instruction D-1 is a presumption of innocence instruction which is fairly covered by instruction C-2. Instruction D-2 is a reasonable doubt instruction, which is fairly covered by instructions C-2, C-3, and D-3. Instruction D-4 is an instruction discussing the duty of an individual juror and is fairly covered by instruction C-4. Instruction D-5 is an instruction which discusses impeachment and is fairly covered by instruction D-6. Instruction D-7 is an accomplice instruction which is fairly covered by instruction C-5. Instruction D-8 is an instruction which discusses conflicting evidence and is fairly covered by instruction C-3. Instruction D-12, a corpus delicti instruction, is fairly covered by instructions C-2, C-3, S-1, and D-3. Jones also asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to grant instruction D-10, a lesser-included offense instruction which would have allowed the jury to consider a manslaughter verdict. This Court disagrees and finds that Jones has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a conviction of manslaughter in this case. The jury heard testimony of Coleman and Steve's sister, who both identified Jones as participating in Steve's kidnapping. The jury also heard Coleman's testimony that Jones beat Steve in the head with a brick prior to his helping Martin through the body over a bridge. Jones has failed to show any foundation in the evidence for the manslaughter instruction. Therefore, the trial court did not err by refusing a manslaughter instruction. Accordingly, these assignments of error are found to be without merit.