Opinion ID: 1088560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: the court erred in refusing defendant's instructions on the insanity issue.

Text: It is urged that in denying offered instructions D-3 and D-4 the trial court failed to grant any meaningful instruction on the issue of insanity and that the granted instruction S-2 was merely a token instruction. The pertinent instructions are as follows: JURY INSTRUCTION D-3 The Court instructs the Jury that if you believe from the evidence that James E. Billiot at the instant of the commission of the alleged crime was a sufferer from some mental disease, from any cause, which broke down in him the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong with reference to the act he did, then it is immaterial whether he was sane on other subjects or at other times. JURY INSTRUCTION D-4 The Court instructs the jury that if the Defendant committed the alleged crime while acting under an irresistible or uncontrollable impulse; and that such impulse was the result of mental disease from which the Defendant was suffering at the time, and that the irresistible or uncontrollable impulse rose to such a degree as to overwhelm the reason, judgment and conscience of James E. Billiot, and that during this irresistible or uncontrollable impulse he could not distinguish between right and wrong, then it is your duty to find him not guity by reason of insanity. JURY INSTRUCTION S-2 The Court instructs the Jury that mere queerness or unusual conduct is not alone any defense to crime, unless the mind of the party committing the crime, if any, is so affected, at the time of the commission thereof, that the power to distinguish between moral right and wrong is destroyed; and even if one be abnormal or queer, still, if he be able to appreciate the difference between moral right and wrong as to the particular act, if any, then the law holds him responsible for that act regardless of such abnormality or queerness, if any. All instructions must be read together, however, and in that regard very pertinent to this issue is jury instruction C-01 which charged the jury as follows, JURY INSTRUCTION C-01 The Court instructs the jury that, if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendant, at the time he killed Wallace J. Croll, Jr., was suffering from mental disease, and that this condition of mind was sufficient to break down in the mind of the defendant, at the time of the killing, the distinction between right and wrong, it is immaterial whether he was totally of [sic] only partially insane on other subjects, and the verdict should be not guilty. The insanity test utilized by this state is the M'Naghten right and wrong test. Laney v. State, 421 So.2d 1216 (Miss. 1982). Despite repeated rejections of tests providing for acquittal of those who act on an uncontrollable or irresistible impulse, see e.g. Laney v. State, supra, at 1218-19, we equally recognize that, [T]he defense of irresistible or uncontrollable impulse was declared in that case [ Smith v. State, 95 Miss. 786, 49 So. 945, 946] to be unavailable, unless the uncontrollable impulse sprang from a mental disease existing to such a high degree as to overwhelm the reason, judgment, and conscience, in which case, as the court adds, the accused would be unable to distinguish the right and wrong of a matter. 169 Miss. at 299, 153 So. at 381. Herron v. State, 287 So.2d 759, 765 (Miss. 1974). See also, Eatman v. State, 169 Miss. 295, 299, 153 So. 381, 381 (1934); Smith v. State, 95 Miss. 786, 49 So. 945 (1909); Burr v. State, 237 Miss. 338, 342, 114 So.2d 764, 766 (1959). Based on the requirements of Herron v. State, supra , and the cases cited above, the opinion testimony of at least three of the experts in this case was sufficient to adequately support the request of appellant for instruction D-4. The question remains, however, whether it was reversible error to refuse instruction D-4. We find that it was not. The trial court is not required to instruct the jury over and over on a principle of law, even though some variations are used in the different instructions. McWilliams v. State, 338 So.2d 804, 806 (Miss. 1976). Further, all instructions should be read together, and if the jury is fully and fairly instructed by other instructions, the refusal of a similar instruction is not reversible error. Barr v. State, 359 So.2d 334, 338 (Miss. 1978). Requested instruction D-3 is contained nearly verbatim in jury instruction C-01. As to requested instruction D-4, this Court said long ago, If the impulse meant is the direct result of such mental disease as destroys the perception of right and wrong, this is only a reaffirmation of the doctrine announced in several preceding charges, and it derives no additional strength from the prefix of the word uncontrollable. Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269, 278-79 (1879). Requested jury instruction D-4 was merely a reaffirmation of jury instruction C-01. Reading the jury instructions as a whole, we cannot say that the insanity test adopted by Mississippi was not fully and fairly placed before the jury. The ninth assignment of error is without merit.