Opinion ID: 1772113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in refusing the defendant's jury instruction d-10?

Text: William Butler argued at trial that he had shot Charles Lassabe in self-defense. It was his contention that Lassabe instigated the incident and that he was only protecting himself and his family. Therefore, he requested a jury instruction on self-defense. His self-defense instruction, D-10, read as follows: The court further instructs the jury that the defendant was entitled to act upon appearances, and if the conduct of the deceased was such as to induce in the mind of a reasonable person (under all circumstances then existing and viewed from the defendant's standpoint) a fear that death or great bodily harm was about to be inflicted on him by the deceased then it does not matter if there was no such danger, provided that the jury believe that the defendant acted in self-defense from a real and honest conviction. Therefore, if under the circumstances, you find that the defendant acted in necessary defense of himself you shall find him not guilty. The assistant district attorney objected to this form of the jury instruction. The trial judge reviewed this instruction and gave a different instruction based on an earlier instruction filed by Butler's previous counsel. The amended instruction, marked D-9(A) read as follows: The court instructs the jury that the killing of a human being is justified if the defendant was acting in necessary self-defense because he had reasonable grounds to fear under all the circumstances in evidence that he was in danger of great personal injury and that there was imminent danger of such bodily harm occurring. If you find that the homicide is justifiable in accordance with all of the instructions herein granted, then you will find the defendant not guilty. Both parties, including Butler's defense counsel, stated that they had no objection to the amended instruction. This Court has long held that the failure of a party to object to a jury instruction at the trial level bars that person's right to challenge the jury instruction on appeal. Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss. 1988); Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 374 (Miss. 1987); Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1317, 1332-1333 (Miss. 1987). Not only did counsel for Butler fail to object to the jury instruction, in fact, he acquiesced in the giving of that instruction. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that he cannot now be allowed to complain about the failure of the court to grant his original jury instruction, and therefore, this assignment of error is without merit.