Opinion ID: 1591943
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the trial court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury as to self-defense.

Text: ¶ 8. During trial, Dobbs testified that he threw Deputy Huffman over his head in self-defense, but that he did not intend to do the deputy any harm. Based on this testimony, Dobbs argues that there was credible evidence in the record to support his claim of self-defense. Consequently, Dobbs argues that the trial court denied him a fair trial when it declined to give the jury his requested instructions on self-defense, labeled D-2, D-3, and D-5. ¶ 9. The State argues that the trial court properly refused the jury instructions requested by Dobbs because they were repetitive. We agree. Although a defendant is entitled to jury instructions which present his theory of the case, this entitlement is limited to instructions that correctly state the law, are not covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, and have a foundation in the evidence. Sproles v. State, 815 So.2d 451, 454(¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (citing Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991)). Furthermore, the trial court is not required to grant several instructions on the same question in different verbiage. Sproles, 815 So.2d at 454(¶ 9) (citing Ragan v. State, 318 So.2d 879, 882 (Miss. 1975)). ¶ 10. Requested jury instruction D-2 read as follows: [t]he Court instructs the jury that if you find that the Defendant, Denis [sic] Dobbs, on or about December [sic] 2002, acted in necessary self defense from Deputy Joe Huffman, then you SHALL FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY of Simple Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer. The State argues that this instruction was adequately covered by instruction S-2, which was granted. Instruction S-2 stated in part that Dobbs should be found guilty as charged if the jury finds that he unlawfully, willfully, feloniously, purposely, and knowingly [caused] or [attempted] to cause bodily injury to Deputy Joe Huffman . . . without authority of law and not in necessary self defense. We find that the limited subject matter of instruction D-2 was adequately covered by S-2. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying instruction D-2. ¶ 11. Dobbs also argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant instruction D-3. Requested jury instruction D-3 read as follows: Dennis Dobbs has been charged with the offense of Simple Assault upon a Law Enforcement Officer. If you find from the evidence in this case the State FAILED to prove in this case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that: 1. Dennis Dobbs, on or about December 6, 2002 in Clay County; 2. Unlawfully, willfully, purposely and knowingly cause or attempt to cause bodily injury to Joe Huffman; 3. By repeatedly grabbing Joe Huffman with his hands and wrestling with him; 4. Joe Huffman was a law enforcement office [sic]; 5. Joe Huffman was acting within the scope of his duty as a law enforcement officer, and further; 6. Dennis Dobbs was not acting in self defense; then you shall find the defendant NOT GUILTY of the Charge of Simple Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer. The trial court ruled found that this instruction was repetitive to instruction D-1, which was granted. Instruction D-1 read as follows: The Court instructs the Jury that if you find that the STATE failed to prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that the Defendant, Den[n]is Dobbs, did on or about December 6th, 2002, did unlawfully, willfully, purposely and knowingly cause or attempt to cause bodily injury to Deputy Joe Huffman, a law enforcement officer with the Clay County Sheriff's Department, at a time when the said Deputy Joe Huffman was acting with the scope of his official duties and office, by repeatedly grabbing the said Deputy Joe Huffman with his hands and wrestling with him, without authority of law not in necessary self defense, then you SHALL FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY of Simple Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer. We fail to see any meaningful difference between instruction D-1, which was granted by the trial court, and instruction D-2. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant instruction D-2. ¶ 12. Finally, Dobbs argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant instruction D-5, which read as follows: The Court instructs the Jury that if you believe from the evidence in this cause that Deputy Joe Huffman committed an unprovoked or unnecessary assault or attack upon the Defendant, Dennis Dobbs, while giving a Command to Mr. Dobbs a State Inmate, then in the event the defendant had the right to resist said unprovoked or unnecessary attack, and if you further believe the defendant's use of this force was not more than reasonably necessary for his own protection and that the defendant's conduct did not cause the assault, then you should find the defendant NOT GUILTY. The trial court refused to grant instruction D-5, holding that the jury was properly instructed by instructions S-4 and D-4. Instruction D-4 required the jurors to render a verdict of not guilty if they determined that Deputy Huffman used excessive force that was not reasonably necessary to compel Dennis Dobbs to comply with his order. Instruction S-4 stated in part that an officer may use such force as is reasonably necessary to compel an inmate to comply with his lawful order, but he may not use excessive force to accomplish this purpose. S-4 further instructed the jurors that if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe Huffman was using only such force as was reasonably necessary . . . then Joe Huffman was justified in his use of that force and the defendant cannot claim a right to resist that force. ¶ 13. We find that the jury was properly instructed by instructions S-4 and D-4, which effectively conveyed the message that Deputy Huffman's actions were not justifiable if he used excessive force. If the jurors determined that Deputy Huffman used excessive force, then they were required to render a verdict of not guilty. Although instruction D-5 does not use the language excessive force, it does ask the jurors to determine whether Deputy Huffman's actions were unnecessary. The trial court was not required to grant several instructions that used different wording to address the same issue, i.e., whether Dobbs was subjected to excessive, or unnecessary force. Therefore, this issue is without merit. ¶ 14. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION OF SIMPLE ASSAULT ON A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO CLAY COUNTY. KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.