Opinion ID: 1831507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Error in the Jury Instructions

Text: I also consider it error to instruct the jury that it could convict Byrom if it found that she caused the death of Byrom Sr after having been offered or having received something of value, for the murder or was a party to such offer or receipt of anything of value for the murder. There was no evidence presented at trial that Byrom was ever offered anything for the murder of Byrom Sr. The majority's reliance on Nixon v. State, 533 So.2d 1078 (Miss.1987), is misplaced because that case is distinguishable from the case at bar. In Nixon, the defendant was the person who had been offered money to commit murder; therefore, the instruction given, which tracked the language of the statute, applied squarely to the facts and evidence presented at the trial. In the case sub judice, Byrom was prosecuted for being the person who offered money to another in payment for that other person committing a murder. Therefore, Nixon does not, by itself, constitute sufficient precedent for dismissing Byrom's argument. This Court held in McBroom v. State, 217 Miss. 338, 64 So.2d 144 (1953), that [a]n instruction not based on evidence is erroneous in that it introduces before jury facts not presented and is well calculated to induce them to suppose that such state of facts, in court's opinion, is possible under the evidence and may be considered by them. (emphasis added). Although finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, this Court reversed and remanded the defendant's grand larceny conviction because the trial court granted the State's instruction on aiding and abetting even though there was no evidence in the record to support the instruction. See also Craft v. State, 214 Miss. 752, 59 So.2d 343 (Miss.1952) (holding an instruction authorizing the jury to convict a defendant as an accessory was prejudicial in the absence of evidence that such defendant had aided and abetted co-defendant in commission of a larceny, and in absence of evidence that co-defendant had in fact committed the larceny). This Court has held repeatedly that to grant jury instructions that are not supported by the evidence is reversible error. See Clark v. State, 693 So.2d 927 (Miss.1997); Givens v. State, 618 So.2d 1313 (Miss.1993); Lancaster v. State, 472 So.2d 363 (Miss.1985); Phillips v. State, 794 So.2d 1034 (Miss.2001); Walker v. State, 740 So.2d 873 (Miss.1999). A circuit judge has a responsibility to see that the jury is properly instructed. Duvall v. State, 634 So.2d 524, 526 (Miss.1994) (internal citations omitted). In the case sub judice, the circuit judge failed in that responsibility. If to give an instruction that is not supported by the evidence can be held sufficiently erroneous to justify reversal of a grand larceny conviction wherein the defendant was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary, see McBroom, supra, then it should also be sufficient to reverse a capital murder conviction wherein the defendant has been sentenced to death. [20] It is true that this instruction, to be erroneous, must still have influenced the jury's verdict; otherwise, it is harmless error that does not warrant reversal. However, what may be harmless error in a case with less at stake becomes reversible error when the penalty is death. Irving v. State, 361 So.2d 1360, 1363 (Miss.1978); see also, Fisher v. State, 481 So.2d 203, 211 (Miss.1985) (quoting Irving); Porter v. State, 732 So.2d 899, 902 (Miss.1999). There was substantial evidence to convict Byrom of having offered something of value for the death of Edward Byrom, Sr.. Conversely, there was absolutely no evidence presented that even suggested that Byrom was offered or received something of value for the murder. I must conclude that this error, though perhaps harmless standing alone, combines to warrant reversal.