Opinion ID: 1091604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in failing to require the state to elect between the charges of murder and manslaughter.

Text: Appellant challenges the failure of the trial court to require the State to elect between the charges of murder and manslaughter on two grounds. Appellant first argues that this invited the jury to compromise their verdict. This argument is not supported by any legal authority and therefore it need not be addressed on appeal. Pate v. State, 419 So.2d 1324 (Miss. 1982); Dozier v. State, 247 Miss. 850, 157 So.2d 798 (1963); Johnson v. State, 154 Miss. 512, 122 So. 529 (1929). A similar contention was recently rejected by this Court in Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308 (Miss. 1984). Secondly, the appellant argues that the failure of the State to elect between murder and manslaughter left the defendant ignorant of the charge against him in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution which guarantees that be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation ... and Article 3, Section 26 of the Mississippi Constitution which guarantees the defendant's right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation... . The basis of this argument is that murder and manslaughter are mutually exclusive charges and that, therefore, manslaughter cannot in justice be deemed a lesser offense of murder. We address this question on the basis of Mississippi authority. The long-standing common-law rule is that an indictment for murder includes all lower grades of felonious homicide. Under this general rule, on an indictment charging murder generally an accused may be found guilty of manslaughter ... and, where manslaughter has been divided by statute into degrees, of any of the statutory degrees. 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations, § 280 (1944). This Court has repeatedly applied the general rule and upheld convictions of manslaughter obtained under an indictment for murder. Wells v. State, 305 So.2d 333 (Miss. 1974); Roberson v. State, 257 So.2d 505 (Miss. 1972); King v. State, 251 Miss. 161, 168 So.2d 637 (1964); Calicoat v. State, 131 Miss. 169, 95 So. 318 (1922). There is no merit to this assignment of error.