Opinion ID: 865371
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The defendant attempted to kill;

Text: (c) The defendant intended that a killing take place; (d) The defendant contemplated that lethal force would be employed. .... [W]e conclude that the jury instruction is not clearly erroneous because it comports with the requirements of Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(7) and this 52 Court’s jurisprudence regarding the State’s burden of proof as to the elements set out in the statute. Id. As we previously discussed, Instruction SSP-4A properly set out the requirements under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(7)(Rev. 2000). See supra Issue X(A). Further, the jury’s finding that King actually killed Patterson indicates its rejection of any other reasonable hypothesis of his participation in the crime. Therefore, King’s argument that he was entitled to DSP-19 based on the circumstantial evidence as to whether he killed Patterson is without merit. Further, we have already found the trial court did not err in giving the instructions on the HAC or “avoiding arrest” aggravators, as these were sufficiently supported by the evidence. See supra Issues IX and X(C). Accordingly, we find this issue devoid of merit.