Opinion ID: 1690710
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: C. Accomplice Liability

Text: ś 33. Doss contends here that the jury was improperly instructed concerning accomplice liability under the two aforementioned instructions because the jury was not required to find that Doss possessed the mens rea or community of intent for the commission of the crime charged as required by Welch v. State, 566 So.2d 680, 685 (Miss. 1990). [15] Doss further asserts that said instructions were mere abstract statements of law as prohibited by Kidd v. State, 258 So.2d 423, 428 (Miss. 1972). ś 34. The State contends that Doss is procedurally barred from raising all three arguments under Issue II. Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239, 1255 (Miss. 1993) (an objection on one or more specific grounds constitutes a waiver of all other grounds). The State asserts that Doss's appellate objection to said instructions was waived because during trial the objection was because the instructions do not take into account the possibility of duress on the part of the defendant. Doss's failure to state the `lack of intent' objection was thereby waived according to the State. Case law supports this position. Alternately, this Court does not find that the jury was improperly instructed on the whole, rendering this issue without merit.