Opinion ID: 1604196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: the trial court erred in denying the proposed defense instruction on accessory after the fact.

Text: Chase requested and was refused Jury Instruction D-18, an accessory after the fact instruction. Chase's only cited support is Gangl v. State, 539 So.2d 132 (Miss. 1989). In Gangl, this Court stated: The better rule in cases such as this is that the defendant may request an instruction regarding any offense carrying a lesser punishment if the lesser offense arises out of a nucleus of operative fact common with the factual scenario giving rise to the charge laid in the indictment. See Griffin v. State, 533 So.2d 444, 447-48 (Miss. 1988). Of course, lesser offense instructions should not be granted indiscriminately, and only where there is an evidentiary basis in the record. Harper v. State, 478 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Miss. 1985); Lee v. State, 469 So.2d 1225, 1230 (Miss. 1985). Id. at 136. There is no evidentiary basis for granting an accessory after the fact instruction in the present case. An accessory after the fact is a person assisting one who has completed the commission of a felony to avoid being apprehended, arrested, convicted, etc. Id. Chase admitted to being at the Harts' home and participating in the robbery and other events which occurred both before and after the murder. His admission made him a principal to the crime and precluded the granting of the instruction. There is no merit to this assignment of error.