Opinion ID: 1784340
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Issue: Whether Instruction S-2 Was Granted Erroneously?

Text: Under objection by Holland, the trial judge granted the following instruction: Instruction S-2 The Court instructs the jury that malice aforethought as charged in the indictment in this cause and as referred to in other instructions of the Court is a state of mind and does not have to exist in the mind of the slayer for any given length of time, and if the defendant, at the very moment of the fatal blow did so with the deliberate design to take the life of the deceased, Krystal D. King, then it was malice aforethought as if the deliberate design had existed in the mind of the defendant for minutes, hours, days, or weeks or even years. Vol. I, at 133. Holland contends that this instruction should not have been granted because it rules out manslaughter[] and is in hopeless conflict with [a] manslaughter instruction. Appellant's Brief at 40-43 (quoting Windham v. State, 520 So.2d 123, 126 (Miss. 1987)). Because the trial judge properly denied the manslaughter instruction, this Court affirms on the issue.