Opinion ID: 1917675
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction Amendment

Text: ¶ 30. Smith argues that the trial court erred in giving a jury instruction that set forth a date which differed from that set forth in the indictment. The date in question concerns the day that Theragood was killed. The indictment provides: That WILLIAM C. SMITH (a/k/a Mustapha Amin), Late of the County and State aforesaid, on or about the 28th day of JANUARY, in the year of our Lord 1998, in the County and State aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, shoot with a firearm and kill Georgette Theragood, a human being; WILLIAM C. SMITH (a/k/a Mustapha Amin) acted with the deliberate design to effect the death of Georgette Theragood, in direct violation of Section 97-3-19(1)(a), Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated, as amended, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi. ¶ 31. Jury instruction number 10 given to the jury states: The Defendant William Christopher Smith, is charged with the crime of Murder. If you find from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, that: 1. The deceased, Georgette Theragood, was a living person; and 2. On or about January 29, 1998, William Christopher Smith, did shoot with a firearm and kill Georgette Theragood with the deliberate design to effect the death of Georgette Theragood, then you shall find the defendant guilty of Murder. If the State has failed to prove any one or more of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, then you shall find the defendant not guilty. ¶ 32. Smith argues that the date contained in jury instruction number 10 on or about January 29, 1998, as opposed to the date stated in the indictment, on or about January 28th, denied him the ability to present an alibi defense. ¶ 33. The record does not reflect that Smith ever objected to the date on or about January 29th, 1998, contained in jury instruction S-1 given as jury instruction number 10. In fact, the record specifically provides, regarding jury instruction number 10, as follows: Court: Okay. S-1, form of the verdict not the form of the verdict, but the elements of the crime for the State. Mr. Jones? Defense: If the Court please, Your Honor, we've looked at it. Our only objection is that I think it should add that circumstantial language since this is a circumstantial evidence case. The court knows what I'm talking about. Court: Mr. Champion? State: That is the circumstantial language. I added to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. Court: Right. That is the Defense: Okay. Did he have it in there? Okay. Court: Yeah. And to the exclusion ofit's beyond aIf you find from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. Defense: Okay Court: All right. So no objection then? So that will beis that right? Defense: Yes, sir. Court: Okay. That will be No. 10given as No. 10. ¶ 34. The present case is similar to Jones v. State, 776 So.2d 643, 653 (Miss. 2000). In Jones, the defense asserted that the trial court committed reversible error in granting the State's jury instruction. Id. However, Jones had failed to object to the jury instruction offered by the State at trial. Id. Not only did Jones fail to object, he agreed with the revised instruction. Id. This Court determined that Jones had waived any objection by not objecting to the jury instruction at trial. This Court stated: This Court has held on numerous occasions that an offended party's failure to object to jury instructions at trial procedurally bars the issue on appeal. Walker v. State, 729 So.2d 197, 202 (Miss. 1998); See also Green v. State, 631 So.2d 167, 173 (Miss.1994) (Green failed to object to the manslaughter instruction given at trial; therefore, it is not necessary for us to review this assignment.). 776 So.2d at 653. ¶ 35. Accordingly, Smith did not object to jury instruction number 10. We find that this issue is without merit as it is procedurally barred.