Opinion ID: 1960644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury?

Text: ¶ 6. Williams requested three instructions on self-defense which the court refused based on the fact that it had already accepted the State's proposed instruction which it felt adequately explained the defense to the jury. [1] Williams claims that the judge erred in refusing his requested instructions. It is well-settled that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense when it is warranted by the evidence. Slater v. State, 731 So.2d 1115, 1118 (Miss.1999). This Court has held: In a homicide case, as in other criminal cases, the court should instruct the jury as to theories and grounds of defense, justification, or excuse supported by the evidence, and a failure to do so is error requiring reversal of a judgment of conviction. Even though based on meager evidence and highly unlikely, a defendant is entitled to have every legal defense he asserts to be submitted as a factual issue for determination by the jury under proper instruction of the court. Where a defendant's proffered instruction has an evidentiary basis, properly states the law, and is the only instruction presenting his theory of the case, refusal to grant it constitutes reversible error. Hester v. State, 602 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss. 1992) (citations omitted). ¶ 7. In the case at bar, Williams's self-defense instructions had an evidentiary basis and arguably stated the law. However, we do not look at jury instructions in a vacuum. The instructions actually given must be read as a whole. When so read, if the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found. Hickombottom v. State, 409 So.2d 1337, 1339 (Miss.1982) (citations omitted). Here, Williams's proposed instructions were not the only instructions presenting his theory of defense. The trial judge instructed the jury on the law of self-defense through instruction S-7. Thus, there was no error in refusing the additional instructions. ¶ 8. Instruction S-7 is the same self-defense instruction recommended by this Court in Robinson v. State, 434 So.2d 206, 207 (Miss.1983). [2] This Court later overruled Robinson, but not the instruction it had recommended. Flowers v. State, 473 So.2d 164, 165 (Miss.1985). Until recently, the instruction recommended by Robinson was consistently held to be a proper instruction on self-defense. Cohen v. State, 732 So.2d 867 (Miss.1998); Gossett v. State, 660 So.2d 1285, 1295 (Miss.1995). ¶ 9. In Reddix v. State, 731 So.2d 591, 595 (Miss.1999), this Court ruled that the Robinson instruction did not sufficiently treat the subject of self-defense. It was argued in Reddix that the instruction was incomplete because it failed to alert the jury to its duty to acquit if it believed the theory of self-defense. Id. at 594. The Court agreed, holding: This instruction while fine for the State, is not sufficient as a neutral self defense instruction. It is couched in prosecutorial terms and fails to state that self defense is, in fact, a defense. In other words, the instruction failed to notify the jury it was bound to acquit Reddix if it found that he acted in self defense. Assuming, as we do that juries follow the instructions given to them by the trial court, Collins v. State, 594 So.2d 29, 35 (Miss.1992), this means the jury could not have acquitted Reddix based upon self defense because it was not informed of any law permitting them to do so. Reddix, 731 So.2d at 595. ¶ 10. Williams did not object to the giving of instruction S-7 at trial, and [i]n order to preserve a jury instruction issue on appeal, a party must make a specific objection to the proposed instruction in order to allow the lower court to consider the issue. Crawford v. State, 787 So.2d 1236, 1244-45 (Miss.2001) (citations omitted). However, assuming arguendo that Reddix requires us to review such an omission as plain error, we find no such error in the case below. ¶ 11. As the Court of Appeals noted in Johnson v. State, 749 So.2d 369, 373 (Miss. Ct.App.1999), [t]he problem that Reddix properly highlights is that the long-approved Robinson instruction cannot be the sole-reference to self-defense. It is quite simply a definition. However, in addition to the Robinson instruction, the jury below was given instruction S-1. This instruction provided the jury with the elements of murder, including that the shooting was not in necessary self-defense. In Cohen, the last case that upheld the Robinson instruction prior to Reddix, this exact set of instructions was given. Cohen, 732 So.2d at 872. Such additional language informed the jurors that if they found that the killing was in necessary self-defense then the elements of the crime were not met. They were further instructed that if the State failed to prove any one or more of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt then they should find Williams not guilty. Thus, the problem found in Reddix is cured in the case sub judice. ¶ 12. Williams further argues that the giving of instruction S-6 was error. Instruction S-6 stated: The Court instructs the Jury that where two or more persons engage in mutual combat, not in reasonably necessary self-defense but each with the intent to kill or do serious bodily injury to the other, and one or more of said persons does, in fact, kill the other, then the person or persons while acting alone or encouraging, aiding, or assisting in any manner in the killing, shall be guilty of murder. ¶ 13. Williams complains that there was no evidence supporting a mutual combat instruction, and further that it was an improper statement of the law as applied to the facts as it does not define self-defense and it omits the possibility of manslaughter. We agree that there were no facts to support such an instruction. However, Williams's only objection to this instruction below was that it failed to define self-defense. As noted, we do not look at jury instructions individually, but as a whole. Gary v. State, 760 So.2d 743, 751 (Miss.2000); Jackson v. State, 645 So.2d 921, 924 (Miss.1994); Hickombottom, 409 So.2d at 1339. Self-defense was properly defined in instruction S-7, and therefore it also was not necessary that it be defined in instruction S-6. ¶ 14. We find no reversible error in the refusal of defense instructions, D-5, D-5-A, or D-6, and none in the instructions that were given.