Opinion ID: 1663505
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing defendant's jury instruction d-4?

Text: ¶ 26. Taylor next argues the trial court erred in refusing to grant Jury Instruction D-4, a circumstantial evidence instruction which read as follows: The court instructs the jury that if there be a fact or circumstance in this case susceptible of two interpretations, one favorable and the other unfavorable to the accused, when the jury has considered such fact of [sic] circumstance with all other evidence, there is a reasonable doubt as to the correct interpretation, then you, the jury must resolve the doubt in favor of the accused, and place upon such fact or circumstance the interpretation most favorable to the accused. ¶ 27. Taylor argues the instruction is appropriate because this Court has held such a circumstantial evidence instruction must be given unless there is some type of direct evidence such as eyewitness testimony, dying declaration, or confession or admission of the accused. Deal v. State, 589 So.2d 1257, 1260 (Miss.1991). The trial court, however, disagreed noting that there's been no denial of the shooting. The State argued there were admissions by the defendant that constituted direct evidence. Manning v. State, 735 So.2d 323, 338 (Miss.1999); Gray v. State, 728 So.2d 36, 76 (Miss.1998). Taylor's second issue lacks merit in that the State's case did not rest solely on circumstantial evidence.