Opinion ID: 1707182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in granting instruction s-3?

Text: Instruction S-3 provided as follows: The Court instructs the jury that if you find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1. Dorothy A. Tally was a living human being; and 2. Dorothy A. Tally died as a result of Carl Moffett operating his automobile in a culpably negligent manner; and 3. The acts of Carl Moffett caused the death of Dorothy A. Tally in that his acts at said time and place exhibited a wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of human life, to-wit: by driving his automobile at an excessive rate of speed while under the influence of intoxicating liquors; failing to maintain a proper lookout for other vehicles then and there on the highway; and striking in the rear the vechile [sic] then and there occupied by Dorothy A. Tally; and 4. That said killing and slaying occurred on the 2nd day of March, 1985, in the Second Judicial District of Jasper County, Mississippi, then you should find the defendant, Carl Moffett, guilty of manslaughter. [Emphasis added]. It is a rule in this state that an instruction should not be given if there is no evidence to support the instruction. Lancaster v. State, 472 So.2d 363, 366 (Miss. 1985); Norman v. State, 385 So.2d 1298, 1301 (Miss. 1980); McBroom v. State, 217 Miss. 338, 64 So.2d 144 (1953). In McBroom, this Court quoted with approval from 53 Am.Jur Trials § 579, p. 455: An instruction not based on the evidence is erroneous in that it introduces before the jury facts not presented thereby, and is well calculated to induce them to suppose that such state of facts in the opinion of the Court is possible under the evidence and may be considered by them. McBroom at 144-45. In the instant case there was absolutely no evidence before the jury upon which they could make a finding that the collision was caused by any failure on Moffett's part to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles. To the contrary, the record indicates that Moffett spotted the Pinto as soon as he reached the crest of the hill and that he immediately moved into the other lane of traffic in an effort to avoid hitting the Pinto. Instruction S-3 should not have been given to the jury, then, because it contained language which was a comment on evidence not in the record. Furthermore, by use of the term to-wit, followed by a list of specific acts, the instruction attempted to give definite examples of what constitutes wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of human life. While we do not pass upon the propriety of giving examples, certainly the trial court cannot give an example of evidence which did not exist. We hold that the trial court erred in granting state instruction S-3. For the reasons stated, we reverse Moffett's conviction and sentence, and remand this case for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur. PITTMAN, J., not participating.