Opinion ID: 1091604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court erred in refusing a requested self-defense instruction.

Text: Appellant also assigns as error the trial court's refusal of requested defense instruction No. 13 stating: The Court instructs the Jury that if you believe from the evidence in this case that the Defendant, Herman Kelly, was justified in acting in reasonable and necessary self-defense by the use of his weapon, then it is not material whether the gun went off by his deliberate act or by his accidental act; in either event, the Defendant is entitled to be acquitted because of having acted in self-defense. Significantly, the trial court granted four defense instructions dealing with self-defense. In McWilliams v. State, 338 So.2d 804 (Miss. 1976), this Court held that it was not error to deny a self-defense instruction under such circumstances, stating: The trial court is not required to instruct the jury over and over on a principle of law, even though some variations are used in the different instructions. All instructions granted by the trial court, both for the State and the appellant, fully and correctly submitted the issue of self-defense to the jury, no prejudice resulted to the appellant, and the trial court committed no error in refusing same. Holmes v. State, 201 Miss. 509, 29 So.2d 312 (1947). 338 So.2d at 806; Accord Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297 (Miss. 1983); Cf. Barr v. State, 359 So.2d 334 (Miss. 1978).