Opinion ID: 1897927
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the jury instructions failed to correctly state the law and served only to confuse the jury.

Text: We find it necessary to address only the Instruction P-2 granted for the appellee, which follows: In order for a person to have been eligible to vote in the subject special election he or she must have been registered for a period of at least thirty (30) days prior to the said election, and have been a resident of the precinct in which he voted. A person is a resident of the precinct in which he voted, if he intended to permanently reside in such precinct, and this is true whether or not he was physically present in the precinct or not. A person will keep his residence, once it is established, until it is clearly shown that he has abandoned such residence. Therefore, if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence, that any voter intended to permanently reside in Fayette, Mississippi, or that he/she had formerly resided in Fayette, Mississippi but never abandoned his/her permanent residence, then you must count his/her ballot. Following the Instruction P-2, the court granted Instruction D-8: The court instructs the jury that a person's residence is where he or she has his or her true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he or she is absent, he or she has the intention of returning. The court further instructs the jury that when a person acquires another residence and removes him or herself to the other residence with intent to remain there, he or she has then changed his or her residence. The appellant contends that Instruction P-2 did not adequately state the law and that it was confusing to the jury. Appellee concedes that the instruction was erroneous but that, considering all of the instructions together, particularly P-2 followed by D-8, they correctly announced the law and removed any inaccuracy and confusion. The rule is well settled that instructions to the jury are to be taken collectively and read and considered together, and if, in reading the instructions together they adequately and properly instruct the jury on the issues, any individual instruction given to the jury will not constitute reversible error. Detroit Marine Engineering v. McRee, 510 So.2d 462, 467 (Miss. 1987); Susan Garcia v. Coast Electric Power Ass'n, 493 So.2d 380 (Miss. 1986); Mississippi Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. John W. Todd, 492 So.2d 919 (Miss. 1986). Some members of the Court are concerned whether the instructions, read together, adequately informed the jury and do not constitute reversible error. However, careful examination of the record reflects that only two votes would be affected by the Instruction P-2, and those votes would not change the election. The assigned error is rejected.