Opinion ID: 1847325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: judge evans' charge on the elements of capital murder improperly amended the indictment by omitting the element of malice aforethought.

Text: ś 145. Jerome asserts that the trial court committed reversible error by constructively amending the indictment through its instructions to the jury. The indictment in this case charged that Jerome and Clyde unlawfully, willfully, feloniously, and of their malice aforethought, did, then and there, kill and murder one Johnny Smith, a human being, said murder being done while Jerome Smith and Clyde Wendell Smith were engaged in the commission of the crime of Armed Robbery as defined in Section 97-3-79 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 as amended, of Johnny Smith in violation of Section 97-3-19(2)(e) of the Mississippi Code of 1972, as amended[.] ś 146. Jerome states that the lower court's instruction to the jury made no mention of the malice element of the indictment, instead charging that Jerome Smith should be found guilty of capital murder if the jurors determined that he did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously kill and murder the victim during the commission of an armed robbery. According to Jerome, this omission was highly prejudicial, as it essentially transformed the instruction into one on felony-murder, a wholly different crime than the intentional murder charged in the indictment. To support his argument that it is reversible error to instruct the jury on a crime different than that charged in the indictment, Jerome cites a number of cases including Rhymes v. State, 638 So.2d 1270, 1275-76 (Miss.1994); Baine v. State, 604 So.2d 258, 260 (Miss.1992); Thomas v. Harrelson, 942 F.2d 1530, 1531 (11th Cir.1991); Quick v. State, 569 So.2d 1197, 1199 (Miss.1990); Griffin v. State, 540 So.2d 17, 19 (Miss.1989); and United States v. Zingaro, 858 F.2d 94, 98-99 (2d Cir.1988). Jerome states that this Court has frequently ordered a new trial where the circuit judge gave an inadequate instruction or no instruction at all on malice, although it was an element of the charged offense, citing Nicolaou v. State, 534 So.2d 168 (Miss.1988); Cooley v. State, 346 So.2d 912 (Miss.1977); and Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 (Miss.1975). ś 147. This assignment must fail for several reasons, the first being it is procedurally barred. The portion of Instruction C-CR-3 that concerns us here reads as follows: If the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence that the Defendant, Jerome Pete Smith, either individually or acting in concert with one other or others did wilfully, without authority of law, and with deliberate design to effect death, kill Johnny Smith, a living person, by shooting him, at a time when Jerome Pete Smith was engaged in the commission of the crime of robbery, then you shall find the Defendant not guilty of Capital Murder. (Emphasis added). ś 148. When this instruction was submitted to the trial court it read with or without deliberate design. During the discussion of the jury instructions at trial, Clyde Smith's attorneys asked that in order to conform with the malice aforethought portion of the indictment the word without be stricken so that the instruction would read with deliberate design. Jerome's attorneys also participated in the discussion concerning the change. The amendment was made, and the trial court asked if anyone had a problem with the instruction as amended. Jerome voiced no objection. Since Jerome accepted the instruction as amended, he has waived any claim of error. See Ballenger, 667 So.2d at 1267; Foster, 639 So.2d at 1270. ś 149. Furthermore, defense counsel was correct at trial when he stated that amending the instruction to read with deliberate design would make the instruction conform with the malice aforethought language used in the indictment. This is so because [i]t has long been the case law of this state that malice aforethought, premeditated design, and deliberate design all mean the same thing. Windham v. State, 602 So.2d 798, 801 (Miss.1992) (quoting Johnson v. State, 475 So.2d 1136, 1139 (Miss.1985)). ś 150. Finally, Jerome was indicted for capital murder pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)(e) which does not require any intent to kill when a person is slain during the course of a robbery. Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542, 549 (Miss.1990). In Berry v. State, 575 So.2d 1, 13 (Miss.1990), the defendant made a similar argument as Jerome makes here and the argument was rejected by this Court. ś 151. For the foregoing reasons, this issue is both procedurally barred and without merit.