Opinion ID: 1133683
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Whether Instruction 15 was proper.

Text: ś 176. Rubenstein also argues Instruction 15 improperly allowed the jury to convict him based on nothing more than some sort of cooperation with another person. As previously stated in Issue XIV, the instruction included aiding and abetting language, and when all of the instructions are read together, the jury was properly instructed. This Court has stated, `[j]ury instructions are to be read together and taken as a whole with no one instruction taken out of context.' Humphrey v. State, 759 So.2d 368, 380 (Miss. 2000) (quoting Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991)). See also Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 193 (Miss.2001). Here, [t]he instructions, when considered in conjunction with all others, had no tendency to mislead or confuse the jury. . . . King, 857 So.2d at 728. Instruction 15 was proper, and this assignment of error is without merit.