Opinion ID: 1711117
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether Counsel was Ineffective for Failure to Request a Lesser-Included Offense Instruction

Text: ¶ 15. Brown's attorneys requested that the trial court instruct the jury on the lesser offense of accessory after the fact of capital murder. The trial judge declined to give the proffered instruction, and Brown now argues that it was error for counsel not to raise the issue on direct appeal. Brown also claims that it was error for counsel not to seek jury instructions on the lesser offenses of simple murder and armed robbery. ¶ 16. Proffered Jury Instruction D-29 read: The Court instructs you that if you do not believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant, Joseph Patrick Brown, is guilty of capital murder, you may consider the Defendant's guilt in the lesser included charge of accessory after the fact to capital murder. You may believe from the evidence that Joseph Patrick Brown guilty of the crime of being an accessory after the fact for having concealed, aided and /or assisted Rachel Walker who had committed the capital murder of Martha Day, which is a felony with the knowledge that Rachel Walker had committed this felony and with the intent to enable Rachel Walker to avoid arrest, trial, conviction and punishment after the commission of the felony. If you find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that 1. Rachel Walker committed the capital murder of Ms. Martha Day, which is a felony under the laws of Mississippi, and 2. The Defendant, Joseph Patrick Brown, had knowledge that Rachel Walker had committed the capital murder of Ms. Martha Day, and 3. The Defendant, Joseph Patrick Brown, concealed, assisted and aided Rachel Walker by helping her avoid arrest and by assisting her in making her defense of said crime by advising her not to make statements, and 4. The Defendant, Joseph Patrick Brown, did these acts with the intent to enable Rachel Walker to avoid arrest, trial, conviction and punishment after Rachel Walker committed the capital murder of Ms. Martha Day, then you shall find the Defendant guilty as an accessory after the fact. If the State has failed to prove any one or more of theses elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find the defendant not guilty. The trial judge refused to give this instruction to the jury after specifically finding that the case was not a proper case for that instruction. A lesser-included offense instruction is appropriate only in those cases where a jury could find the defendant not guilty of the principal charge but guilty of a lesser offense. Evans v. State, 725 So.2d 613, 664 (Miss. 1997); Davis v. State, 684 So.2d 643, 656-57 (Miss.1996). ¶ 17. In reviewing a request for lesser offense jury instruction, this Court will look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant in determining whether such an instruction was warranted. Taylor v. State, 577 So.2d 381, 383 (Miss.1991). In the present case, it cannot be said that the case against Brown was so lacking that a jury could only find him not guilty of capital murder. The testimony of Walker and Bernard, coupled with Brown's own letters, provided sufficient evidence for a finding of guilt on the greater offense. Further, the record reflects no credible evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Walker committed the murder and that Brown acted only as an accessory after the fact. This Court has held that a jury verdict should not be overturned as long as there is credible evidence in the record from which the jury could have found or reasonably inferred each element of the offense. Davis v. State, 586 So.2d 817, 819 (Miss. 1991). There was simply no evidentiary foundation to support the giving of Instruction D-29. Consequently, there can be no error on the part of counsel in failing to appeal the refusal to give the instruction. ¶ 18. Brown also argues that it was error not to request that the jury be instructed on simple murder and armed robbery. Brown cites no authority for this proposition. This Court has found that a lesser-included offense instruction is not supported where the evidence of the component crimes in the capital murder charge are so intertwined as to be virtually inseparable. Conner v. State, 684 So.2d 608, 613 (Miss.1996) (citing Conner, 632 So.2d 1239, 1255 (Miss.1993)). The underlying crimes of murder and armed robbery are the integral elements of the capital charge against Brown. The record does not support a finding that a reasonable juror could have found Brown guilty of the lesser component offenses yet not guilty of capital murder. Brown was therefore not entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction, and it cannot be said that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request such an instruction. Further, it was Brown's theory of the case that someone else, i.e., Walker, committed both the robbery and the murder. This was clearly evidenced by Brown's testimony at the sentencing phase of the trial where the following exchange took place. Q. All right, Mr. Brown, are you trying to tell this jury that you didn't commit this crime? A. Yes. Q. That's what your testimony is? A. That's what it is. It would have been entirely inconsistent with his defense for counsel to request jury instructions on simple murder and armed robbery. ¶ 19. The Court has also held that any error in failing to give a lesser-included offense instruction was cured by the inclusion of an instruction requiring the jury to find [the defendant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the capital crime with which he was charged. Id. Instructions C-6, S-1, S-2 and D-3 required the jury in this case to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to each component of the principal charge. Trial counsel did not err in failing to seek jury instructions which were inconsistent with the defense presented and which were not supported by the evidence. This issue is without merit.