Opinion ID: 1133683
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on the only definition of capital murder, and whether the verdict was clearly unanimous.

Text: ś 161. Before discussing Issues XIV through XVIII, we note that Rubenstein's theory of the case centered on the assertion that he could not have killed three people at once. This theory, which will be discussed infra, forced the State to request alternate jury instructions. Unanimous verdict ś 162. Rubenstein argues Instructions 5 and 15 allowed the jury to convict him without making a unanimous finding in violation of his due process rights. He also contends the jury instructions supported different theories of capital murder, those being murder during the commission of the crime of felonious child abuse, murder for hire, or acting as an accomplice, aider, or abetter. [18] Instruction 5 states, in part: [19] Therefore, the Court instructs the Jury that if you believe from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Krystal Ryan Perry, Evelyn Anne Perry and Darryl Perry were murdered as defined in other instructions from the Court, and further believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Alan Michael Rubenstein, arranged for, counseled, assisted or commanded another to commit the murders, if any, then you may find the defendant, Alan Michael Rubenstein, guilty as charged. Instruction 15 states, in part: The Court instructs the jury that Alan Michael Rubenstein has been charged in Count One of the indictment with the capital murder of Krystal Ryan Perry on or about the 16th day of November, 1993. Therefore, if you find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 16th day of November, 1993, in Pike County, Mississippi, the defendant, Alan Michael Rubenstein, did wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and of his malice aforethought, either alone or in cooperation with another kill and murder Krystal Ryan Perry, a child, by intentionally committing acts which resulted in the torture of the said Krystal Ryan Perry, then you should find the defendant guilty of capital murder. ś 163. The record reflects Rubenstein failed to object to Instructions 5 and 15 on the basis that the jury would be able to convict him without a unanimous verdict in violation of his due process rights. Accordingly, this issue is procedurally barred on appellate review. Carter, 722 So.2d at 1261 (objection on one ground waives all other grounds on appeal). Despite the procedural bar, we will briefly address this issue on the merits. ś 164. A number of instructions required the jury to reach a unanimous verdict. Instruction 17 states, in part, [t]he Court instructs the Jury that before you can reach a verdict in this case, all twelve of you must agree upon the same verdict. This means that any verdict of the Jury must be unanimous. Instruction 16 reads, in part, [t]he verdict of the jury must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it will be necessary that each juror agree. In other words, all twelve jurors must agree before returning a verdict in this case. These instructions make it clear that the twelve jury members were required to reach a unanimous verdict, which they did. The trial court also polled the jury, finding the verdict to be unanimous. Rubenstein's claim that the instructions allowed the jury to convict him without a unanimous verdict is meritless. Murder for hire ś 165. Furthermore, the record reflects that Rubenstein did not object to the instructions based on perceived murder for hire language. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred. Walker, 671 So.2d at 597. ś 166. Rubenstein's complaint is also without substantive merit. Instruction 5 contains no language indicative of a murder for hire instruction. The murder for hire provision states, that capital murder includes a murder that is perpetrated by any person who has been offered or has received anything of value for committing the murder, and all parties to such a murder, are guilty as principals. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)(d). The instructions contain no language similar to the statute and cannot be considered murder for hire instructions. Aiding and abetting ś 167. Instruction 5, as the State admits, contains language that is essentially an aiding and abetting instruction. See King, 857 So.2d at 727-28. However, as explained in Issues XVI and XVII, infra, Rubenstein's theory of the case necessitated an instruction including the arranged for, counseled, assisted or commanded another language. The trial court did not err in giving either Instruction 5 or 15 to the jury. For all these reasons, this assignment of error is without merit.