Opinion ID: 1829968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: Denial of Hansen's Proposed Jury Instructions

Text: Hansen argues that the Circuit Court erred in its wholesale denial of his proposed jury instructions. He offers little in the way of particulars. We address the points Hansen addresses.
At the guilt phase, Hansen asked that the jury be instructed regarding credibility of the law enforcement officers who appeared as witnesses, viz. that they are to be seen no more believable than any other witness. [11] The Court refused the instruction. [12] Our law of criminal procedure has long perceived dangers in comments upon the evidence, and in that regard we have for years had a statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-35 (1972), which reads in pertinent part: The judge in any criminal cause, shall not sum up or comment on the testimony, or charge the jury as to the weight of evidence... . We have on at least two occasions invoked this statute to affirm Circuit Court refusals to give instructions legally identical to that Hansen proposed. Washington v. State, 341 So.2d 663, 664 (Miss. 1977), and Stewart v. State, 355 So.2d 94, 97 (Miss. 1978). It is certainly true that of late our attitude toward comments upon the evidence may have relaxed, see Nichols v. Munn, 565 So.2d 1132, 1136-37 (Miss. 1990); Weaver v. State, 497 So.2d 1089, 1094 (Miss. 1986), but not so much that we will require the instruction at issue. We affirm on this issue.
More generally, Hansen argues that the case against him was based upon mistaken eyewitness identification testimony, and he sought to have the jury instructed on the point. [13] The proposed instruction, GP-13, was a cautionary instruction concerning eyewitness identification testimony. In Holmes v. State, 483 So.2d 684, 687 (Miss. 1986), this Court held such instructions were properly refused. [14] The Court said: [W]e know of no rule of law or standard of evidence which requires that identification testimony be viewed with caution and that juries be instructed to that effect. Our cases on the point expressly hold that such an instruction should not be given. Hines v. State, 339 So.2d 56, 58 (Miss. 1976); Clubb v. State, 350 So.2d 693, 697 (Miss. 1977); Ragan v. State, 318 So.2d 879, 882 (Miss. 1975) (emphasis in original). Again, the jury was instructed generally on its duty to scrutinize carefully all testimony of all witnesses, and, as well, on the prosecution's burden to prove Hansen guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no error here.