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

Heading: the trial court erred in granting instruction s-10a.

Text: ¶ 17. Jury instruction S-10A stated as follows: The Court instructs the jury that a person may not use more force than reasonably appears necessary to save his life or protect himself or others from great bodily harm. The question of whether he was justified in using the weapon is for determination by the jury. The law tolerates no justification and accepts no excuse for an assault with a deadly weapon on the pleas of self defense except that the assault by the defendant on the victim was necessary or apparently so to protect the defendant's own life or his person or that of others from great bodily injury and there was immediate danger of such design being accomplished. The danger to life or of great personal injury must be or reasonably appears to be imminent, and present at the time the defendant commits the homicide with a deadly weapon. The term apparent as used in apparent danger means such overt, actual demonstration by conduct and acts of a design to take life or do some great personal injury as would make the homicide apparently necessary to self-preservation. ¶ 18. Montana complains that this instruction is couched in prosecutorial terms, is peremptory in nature, and contains language which is totally improper and prejudicial. He further urges that because the instruction speaks of the defendant committing both an assault and a homicide, it is self-contradictory and confusing. He also states the instruction is in conflict with instruction S-4A. ¶ 19. Montana does little to develop this argument other than to cite Sheppard v. State, 777 So.2d 659 (Miss.2000), Reddix v. State ; Scott v. State, 446 So.2d 580 (Miss. 1984), and Smith v. State, 463 So.2d 1028 (Miss.1984), overruled, Ferrell v. State 733 So.2d 788 (Miss.1999), and generally state that they apply to this issue. Though each of these cases involved allegations of error regarding self-defense instructions, none of these opinions are applicable to Montana's argument regarding the instruction at issue. ¶ 20. As discussed in the previous issue, the jury in the case sub judice was adequately instructed on the subject of self defense. Additionally, the defense was granted self-defense instructions D-26, D-27, and D-29. Instruction D-26 instructed the jury that the danger to Montana or others need not have been actual but only reasonably apparent and imminent, so as to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilty. Instruction D-27, a no retreat instruction, stated that Montana need not have avoided the danger to himself or others by flight in order to assert the right to self defense. Instruction D-29 instructed the jury to put themselves in Montana's place in determining whether the danger was apparent, and that the jury must not require of Montana the same cool judgment. ¶ 21. Instruction S-10A is not in conflict with S-4A. Montana fails to demonstrate how the jury may have been misled by the use of the words assault or homicide. Considering the five self-defense instructions together, we find that the jury was properly instructed.