Opinion ID: 1924358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant instruction d 31.

Text: ¶ 22. The trial court refused to grant Instruction D-31, which provided: The Court instructs the jury that if the State has failed to prove any one or more of the elements of murder as set forth in another instruction beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall find the accused, Joseph Scott Montana, not guilty. Moreover, the accused is not charged with the burden of proving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, the State bears the burden of negating the accused's assertion of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find that the State has failed to do so, your verdict must be not guilty. ¶ 23. Montana contends that D-31 was the only instruction which advised the jury that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Montana did not act in self defense before a guilty verdict could be returned. This Court finds that the trial court did not err in refusing this instruction. ¶ 24. The first sentence of D-31 effectively eliminated manslaughter from the jury's consideration. The instruction is, therefore, in conflict with S-2A, which told the jury that if the State failed to prove the essential elements of murder, it was proceed with deliberations to decide whether the State had proved the elements of manslaughter. ¶ 25. Neither was the trial judge in error for failing to reform the instruction. As discussed previously regarding Montana's first allegation of error, instruction S-2A instructed the jury that if the State failed to prove Montana did not act in self-defense, it must find Montana not guilty. That same instruction informed the jury that the State's burden of proof as to the elements of the crime charged, including the determination that Montana was not acting in self defense, was beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶ 26. A trial judge is under no obligation to grant redundant instructions. Ellis v. State, 790 So.2d 813, 815 (Miss. 2001) (citing Bell v. State, 725 So.2d 836, 849 (Miss.1998)). The refusal to grant an instruction which is similar to one already given does not constitute reversible error. Id. (citing Laney v. State, 486 So.2d 1242, 1246 (Miss.1986)). We find no error in the trial court's refusal of Instruction D 31.