Opinion ID: 1694843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the trial court erred in granting a jury instruction defining conspiracy.

Text: ¶ 45. Drake asserts that the trial court committed reversible error in granting jury instruction S-1 which defined the crime of conspiracy charged in Count 1 of Drake's indictment. Drake argues that the instruction is not supported by credible evidence. ¶ 46. The general rule is that all instructions must be supported by the evidence. Where an instruction is not supported by evidence then it should not be given. Hicks v. State, 580 So.2d 1302, 1306 (Miss.1991). The trial court found that the testimony of Officers Thompson and Doss supported the instruction and granted it. We agree with the trial court's decision. ¶ 47. The following testimony elicited from Thompson supports an instruction embodying the State's conspiracy theory: Assistant District Attorney: So now that you're at the scene of the car here at Mistle Toe and Hickory Bark, he tells you the names of the two robbers? Thompson: That is correct. Q: Manrese Long and who? A: Zachary Harrington. Q: And immediately after he tells you the names of those two individuals, what does he tell you? A: He stated that the three of them had talked about this earlier, and they were needing money, and that they had called Mr. Harwell to come to the lake area, or Brandon had called him to the lake area. Q: Why? A: Of course, he said he didn't know what the plan was, and this was made in another statement. Q: Let's talk about what he said here, now. Read your report. Did you write down exactly what was said in your report? A: I did. Q: What does it say? A: Drake stated the three of them conspired to lure Harwell to the lake and rob Harwell. Q: The three of them being who? A: Zachary Harrington, Manrese Long, and Eric Brandon Drake.    Q: While you're at the scene of the car, what does he tell you about the three of them and their plan? A: He told me that the plan was to have Mr. Harwell come to the lake and was going to rob him at the lake area. Officer Doss's testimony corroborates Thompson's testimony. ¶ 48. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is two or more persons combining and agreeing to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful purpose unlawfully. Clayton v. State, 582 So.2d 1019, 1022 (Miss.1991). The testimony of Officers Thompson and Doss clearly establish an evidentiary basis for an instruction embodying the State's conspiracy theory. Therefore, the instruction was properly granted. We find no merit to this assignment of error.