Opinion ID: 1788650
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: did the court err in granting state's instructions s-4a, s-4b and s-5?

Text: Scotti and Terry objected to instructions S-4A and S-4B on the grounds that they inaccurately stated the definition of possession. Scotti and Terry objected to instruction S-5 on the ground that it singled out a portion of their testimony, and hence, the instruction amounted to an improper comment by the court on the defendants' testimony. This instruction stated that it was immaterial that the defendants did not pay for the marijuana when they obtained it or did not intend to receive money at the time they were to deliver the marijuana. On appeal, they raise a second argument, that these instructions, which use the term marijuana assumes facts which the state had the burden to prove. The instruction states that the defendants obtained marijuana, and the argument is that this incorrectly presumes the charged element of the identity of the substance. Instructions cannot assume the guilt of the defendant. Pegram v. State, 223 Miss. 294, 78 So.2d 153 (1955). The state has the burden to prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 843 (1991); Sloan v. State, 368 So.2d 228, 229 (Miss. 1979); City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944 (1966). The instruction should have more properly used a general term such as substance in place of marijuana. Because the state had the burden of proving the presence of marijuana, and the jury instruction assumed this element, these instructions were improper and would be cause to reverse. However, Scotti and Terry did not raise the presumptive effect of these jury instructions as part of their objections at trial. Their grounds for objecting at trial had to do with the definition of possession as to instructions S-4A and S-4B, and with the singling out of the defendants' testimony as to instruction S-5. Because these arguments are not preserved for appeal, this Court cannot reverse based upon them. The assertion on appeal of grounds for an objection which was not the assertion at trial is not an issue properly preserved on appeal. Baine v. State, 606 So.2d 1076 (Miss. 1992); Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660, 671 (Miss. 1991); Crawford v. State, 515 So.2d 936, 938 (Miss. 1987); Watson v. State, 483 So.2d 1326 (Miss. 1986). See also, M.R.E. 103, Unif.Crim.R.Cir.Ct.Prac. 5.03. This assignment of error is without merit. AS TO HADDOX: CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF OVER ONE KILOGRAM OF MARIJUANA AND SENTENCE OF TEN (10) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AFFIRMED. AS TO POWELL: CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF OVER ONE KILOGRAM OF MARIJUANA AND SENTENCE OF TEN (10) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AFFIRMED. HAWKINS, C.J., DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, P.JJ., and PITTMAN, BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS Jr. and SMITH, JJ., concur. McRAE, J., not participating.