Opinion ID: 864434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: proffered jury instruction d-4

Text: ¶9. Rosenthall alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to grant the proposed jury instruction D-4, which would have directed the jury to draw no inference against him from his failure to testify. ¶10. Proposed jury instruction D-4 is reprinted as follows: The Court instructs the jury that the fact that Christopher Rosenthall did not take the witness stand and testify cannot be considered by you for any purpose and no inference whatsoever can be drawn against Christopher Rosenthall by reason of his decision not to take the stand and testify. The law gives every person charged with a crime the absolute and unqualified privilege of not testifying, and the law further requires that no inference adverse to the defendant can be drawn by you, the jury, by reason of his decision not to testify. ¶11. Jury instruction C-4 is reprinted as follows: The burden of proof in this case is on the State to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is not required to prove anything in this cause or to testify in his own behalf. You must not hold the fact that the defendant did not testify in this case against him or as any evidence of guilt. ¶12. The trial court enjoys considerable discretion regarding the form and substance of jury instructions. Higgins v. State, 725 So.2d 220, 223 (Miss. 1998). A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court 5 may refuse an instruction which . . . is fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. Id. The trial court explained that this instruction was refused on the ground of repetitiveness in light of the fact that Instruction C-4 was given. Additionally, Rosenthall failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal of repetitive instructions. This assignment of error is without merit.