Opinion ID: 1750758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: whether the trial court erred in granting state's instruction s-8

Text: Hornburger argues that instruction S-8 conflicts with instruction S-1-A. Both instructions follow: S-8 The Court instructs the Jury that each person present at the time, and consenting to and encouraging the commission of a crime, and knowingly, willfully and feloniously doing any act which is an element of the crime or immediately connected with it, or leading to its commission, is as much a principal as if he had with his own hand committed the whole offense; and if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Gregory Hornburger, a/k/a Greg Hornburger, did willfully, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously do any act which is an element of the crime of burglary of a building, or leading to its commission, then and in that event, you should find the defendant guilty as charged. S-1-A The defendant, Gregory Hornburger, has been charged by an indictment with the crime of burglary while acting in concert with or aiding and abetting another. If you find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1. The building located at 1720 Dog Bog Road in Coahoma County, Mississippi, was the property of Louis Lucas, Sr. and 2. The defendant, Gregory Hornburger, by acting in concert with or aiding and abetting Louis Lucas, Jr. broke and entered the Lucas Auto Repair Shop Building by bending back the front door; and 3. Goods, merchandise or valuable things were kept in building for sale, use or deposit, and 4. the defendant had the intent to steal from the building, then you shall find the defendant guilty of burglary of a building other than a dwelling. If the State had failed to prove any one or more of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find the defendant not guilty. Hornburger contends that these instructions did not adequately apprise the jury of the law. Hornburger suggests that S-8 tells the jury that if they found he had committed any act which was an element of burglary or led to its commission, they could find him guilty as charged, without first finding that he was present, consenting and encouraged the commission of the crime (i.e., an aider and abettor). Hornburger argues that this conflicts with S-I, and that the jury is given a choice to find the Appellant guilty either by Instruction S-1-A or S-8. The State argues that this Court has approved instructions virtually identical to S-8, and has rejected claims that such an instruction permits the jury to convict without finding the defendant an aider and abettor. [8] The State, noting this Court's holdings that all instructions must be read together, also argues that S-1-A and S-8, when read together, required that the State prove each element of the crime, including aiding and abetting, beyond a reasonable doubt. The State contends that the two instructions did not conflict, and that the jury was properly instructed. This Court rejected the arguments offered by Hornburger in Simmons v. State, 568 So.2d 1192 (Miss. 1990). In Simmons, the appellant argued that the court had erred in granting an instruction almost identical to S-8, because the instruction implied that the jury could convict her if only one element of the crime charged was proven. Simmons argued that this was reversible error, since all elements of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court noted that the instruction complained of by Simmons was similar to the aiding and abetting instruction it approved in Kelly v. State, 493 So.2d 356, 359 (Miss. 1986). The Court also stated that other instructions given to the jury provided that the State had to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court concluded that the jury was properly instructed on the law, when the instructions were read together. See also Davis v. State, 586 So.2d 817, 821 (Miss. 1991) (Court upheld instruction almost identical to S-8 in the case at bar). Nevertheless, while similar instructions have been approved in Simmons, Kelly, and Davis, the jury was improperly instructed in the case sub judice with regard to instruction S-8. However, when read together, these instructions adequately informed the jury of the law making the improper instruction a harmless error. See also Gray v. State, 487 So.2d 1304, 1308 (Miss. 1986) (when instructions are read together, no error can be predicated on failure of one instruction to set out properly a necessary element of the crime, where the element was included correctly in other instructions). In sum, under the logic of Gray, Hornburger's argument does not warrant a reversal. The jury was improperly instructed, and the court did err in submitting instruction S-8 to the jury, but it was harmless at most.