Opinion ID: 1751000
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was giles entitled to a lesser included offense instruction?

Text: Giles contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant a requested lesser-included offense instruction. The trial court refused an instruction which, according to Giles, would have informed the jury that it should convict the defendant of simple murder should the State fail to prove all the elements of capital murder. The proposed instruction which Giles argues is a lesser-included offense instruction, however, is simple form-of-verdict instruction. In the very recent case of Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239 (Miss. 1993), this Court was faced with both the same refused form-of-verdict instruction and the same argument Giles presents. In Conner, this Court held that the trial court's refusal to grant a lesser included offense instruction was not reversible error for two reasons. First, the defendant never sought a lesser-included offense instruction and failed to complain of the court's refusal to give one. Secondly, the record in Conner had no evidentiary foundation for which upon the instruction could stand. Conner, 632 So.2d at 1254. This Court held that the proposed form-of-verdict instruction in Conner did not constitute a lesser-included offense instruction since the defense tendered no instruction defining simple murder, nor did it ask the trial court to explain to the jury that it could convict the defendant of a lesser crime than capital murder. Id. Like Conner, in the case sub judice, Giles offered no instruction defining simple murder and, in addition, did not request that the trial court convict Giles of a lesser crime than capital murder. Giles' argument that the trial court should have reformed this instruction so that it properly informed the jury of its authority to find the defendant guilty of some lesser offense is of no merit. In Conner, this Court held that its case law does not impose upon a trial court a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte, nor is a court required to suggest instructions in addition to those which the parties tender. Id. However, on remand if Giles presents a lesser-included offense instruction, the trial court judge should be mindful of this Court's evidentiary standard found in Harper v. State, 478 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Miss. 1985): [A] lesser included offense instruction should be granted unless the trial judge  and ultimately this Court  can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the accused and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn in favor of the accused from the evidence, that no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense (and conversely not guilty of at least one essential element of the principal charge). See McGowan v. State, 541 So.2d 1027, 1028 (Miss. 1989). In Welch v. State, 566 So.2d 680, 684 (Miss. 1990), this Court further supported the granting of lesser-included offense instructions stating: Defendants are entitled to have instructions on their theory of the case presented to the jury for which there is foundation in evidence, even though the evidence might be weak, insufficient, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility.