Opinion ID: 1658871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the trial court improperly refuse jury instruction D-7?

Text: Jury instruction D-7 reads: The Court instructs the jury that one of the issues you are called upon to decide in this case is whether Elmer Moon Mullins was the aggressor at the time he was shot and killed by the defendant; and in so deciding you may consider the evidence, if any, of the bad reputation of the said Elmer Moon Mullins for peace and violence and all the evidence of any threats, if any, that the said Elmer Moon Mullins may have made against the defendant and all evidence, if any, of the nature and character of previous difficulties between Elmer Moon Mullins and defendant which were wantonly provoked by Elmer Moon Mullins. In refusing instruction D-7, the trial judge stated, The court believes that the Jury, of course, has heard the evidence as to the nature and character of previous difficulties and so forth, and the evidence surrounding the incident itself, and believes that other instructions already granted as to self-defense are sufficient to cover these points. Every case appellant cites under this proposition concerns the admissibility of proof of prior difficulties between the defendant and the victim. In the case sub judice, the court did not prohibit evidence of prior threats made by the deceased, it simply refused to unduly emphasize those threats in its jury instructions. The jury was allowed to consider the evidence of prior threats along with the other evidence presented at trial. In addition, the jury was properly instructed on the law of self-defense. Therefore, this Court finds no reversible error in refusal of instruction D-7.