Opinion ID: 863607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 29

Heading: Application to the Case Sub Judice

Text: ś 94. Edwards takes offense at the word or and maintains that the verdict's disjunctive form suggests a lack of unanimity on any one particular fact. He cites United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir.1985) and United States v. Gipson, 553 F.2d 453 (5th Cir.1977), for the proposition that where a jury could have based its verdict on two separate legal theories, the reviewing court cannot attempt to guess on which theory the verdict rests. ś 95. However, as the State points out, Edwards waived this assignment of error by failing to object to the form of verdict at trial. Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239, 1273 (Miss.1993) ( citing Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 369 (Miss.1987) (rule that preservation of error requires contemporaneous objection is applicable to capital cases)). Furthermore, the word or, is a mere scrivener's error which the jury copied into its verdict. Conner, 632 So.2d at 1273. There is no merit to this assignment of error.