Opinion ID: 1850292
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the trial court err by refusing to give griffin's proposed jury instructions concerning the elements of the crime of burglary?

Text: The record reveals that the granted instructions fully addressed the elements of the crime of burglary. This Court has held on numerous occasions that a trial court need not grant an otherwise valid instruction if the subject matter contained in the proposed instruction is adequately covered by an instruction already granted. Turnage v. State, 518 So.2d 1217, 1218 (Miss. 1988); Laney v. State, 486 So.2d 1242, 1246 (Miss. 1986); Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445, 461 (Miss. 1984); Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297, 302 (Miss. 1983). Since the refused instructions offered no substance beyond that contained in the granted instructions, the trial court acted within the bounds of its discretion when refraining to accept them. CONVICTION FOR BURGLARY OF A DWELLING AND SENTENCE OF TEN (10) YEARS IN CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER UNDER MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-19-81 (1972), SAID SENTENCE TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO CAUSE NO. 6669, BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.