Opinion ID: 1099739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in the instructions to the jury.

Text: ś 113. The brothers criticize the jury instructions for failing to adequately instruct the jury on aiding and abetting. Jury instructions 2-4 [6] , 8, 10, and 11 are in question. ś 114. Jury instructions `[a]re to be taken collectively rather than be given individual consideration. So long as all the instructions read together adequately and properly instruct the jury on the issues, an individual instruction given to the jury will not constitute reversible error.' Coleman v. State, 804 So.2d 1032, 1037 (Miss.2002) (quoting Detroit Marine Eng'g v. McRee, 510 So.2d 462, 467-68 (Miss.1987)). Where other instructions have both fairly and fully informed the jury, reversal is not warranted on appeal for an error in the instruction. Id. at 1038. ś 115. The jury instructions given at trial were as follows: Jury Instruction No. 2 The Court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the State has proven all of the elements of Murder, to-wit: 1. that on or about April 12, 1970, in Humphreys County, Mississippi, 2. Rainey Poole, a human being, was killed and murdered, and 3. that such killing was done with the deliberate design to effect the death of Rainey Poole, and 4. was not in necessary self-defense, and if you further believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant, JAMES DOC CASTON, was present, consenting, aiding and abetting or encouraging the commission of the said elements of said crime, then you should find the Defendant, JAMES DOC CASTON. guilty of Murder. Jury Instruction No. 8 The Court instructs the Jury that it is not sufficient to find a person guilty because he merely was present at the time and place of the commission of a crime. His mere presence standing alone is not sufficient for him to be found to have committed the criminal act. Accordingly, it is your sworn duty to find the Defendants, or any one of them, not guilty unless you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he actively, knowingly and willingly participated in the murder of Rainey Pool. The Defendants, or any one of them, must act with knowledge and deliberation and have some cognizant involvement on his part to commit a crime in order to be found guilty of murder. Jury Instruction No. 10 The Court instructs the Jury that proof of accomplice liability requires a showing not only that a defendant charged with a crime intended the behavior that is alleged to have aided, abetted or provided means or opportunity, but also that such a defendant intended that his behavior have the effect of promoting or facilitating the crime being committed. The Defendants, or any one of their's, presence is one of the circumstances that the Jury may legitimately consider to determine whether he possessed that intent, however, absent evidence of purposeful behavior, mere presence at the scene of the crime, even when coupled with knowledge that a crime is being committed, standing alone, is insufficient to establish accomplice liability. Jury Instruction No. 11 The Court instructs the Jury that in order to be convicted or murder under the theory that a defendant aided and abetted in the commission of the crime as charged in the indictment, then the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: that at the time the killing occurred, James Doc Caston was present and he shared a community of intent for the commission of the crime, and if you believe from the evidence that he withdrew from the assault prior to the infliction of fatal blows to Rainey Poole or if you believe that he abandoned the community of intent to kill the victim, then you must find James Doc Caston not guilty of murder. (emphasis added). ś 116. As to jury instruction number 2, the brothers claim that the instruction should require that the defendant was present and aiding, abetting or encouraging the commission of the crime. To have the instruction state otherwise, according to the brothers, would instruct the jury to convict a defendant if he was present or aiding and abetting or encouraging the crime. ś 117. The instruction given at trial stated that the defendant was present, consenting, aiding and abetting or encouraging the commission of the said elements of said crime ... (emphasis added). The brothers argue that the instruction as given could have found any of the three brothers guilty for merely being present when someone else committed the crime. ś 118. The record reveals that the brothers did not object to the instruction. The instruction language clearly provides two possibilities, the first being that a defendant must be present, consenting, and aiding and abetting. In the alternative, the defendant could also be encouraging the commission of the elements of the crime. Therefore, the brothers' argument is unpersuasive. ś 119. On the other hand, this Court has held that [i]n determining whether error lies in the granting or refusal of various instructions, the instructions actually given must be read as a whole. When so read, if the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found. Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777 (Miss.1997) (quoting Collins v. State, 691 So.2d 918 (Miss.1997)). See also Woodham v. State, 800 So.2d 1148, 1156 (Miss.2001); Milano v. State, 790 So.2d 179, 183 (Miss.2001); Pulphus v. State, 782 So.2d at 1224. Following this well-settled law and when viewing the instructions as a whole, the brothers' contention as to instruction number 2 is unfounded. ś 120. Jury instruction 8 provides in part that it is not sufficient to find a person guilty because he merely was present at the time and place of the commission of a crime. His mere presence standing alone is not sufficient for him to be found to have committed the criminal act. (emphasis added). Even though jury instruction 10 is an accomplice instruction, it is also helpful as to presence at the scene. This instruction provided, in part, that absent evidence of purposeful behavior, mere presence at the scene of the crime, even when coupled with knowledge that a crime is being committed, standing alone, is insufficient to establish accomplice liability. (emphasis added). This Court looks at jury instructions as a whole. When reading these instructions together, it is clear that mere presence would not be enough for a conviction. As stated above instructions 2-4 are on their face clear, however, to the extent that instruction 2 nevertheless, may be viewed as incorrect, reading all the instructions as a whole cured any inaccuracies. ś 121. The brothers also complain about instructions 8, 10, and 11. These instructions were given at the request of defense counsel. It is a familiar rule of law that one may not complain of his own instruction. Hall v. State, 420 So.2d 1381, 1386 (Miss.1982). This Court found that the instruction was requested by the defendant, not by the State. We specifically held in Musselwhite v. State, 212 Miss. 526, 54 So.2d 911 (1951), that an accused may not complain of an instruction given at his request. Buford v. State, 372 So.2d 254, 256 (Miss.1979). ś 122. However, the brothers, also, raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel; therefore, we will address the merits of the defense instructions. ś 123. The brothers state that jury instruction 11 does not inform the jury what community of intent means and allows a conviction without finding that a defendant intended to aid and abet each element of the crime. Instruction 10, according to the brothers, also is unclear. They maintain that the instruction allows a defendant to be found guilty without finding that the defendant had the intent to aid and abet the elements of the crime. Finally, instruction 8 is challenged because cognizant involvement is meaningless; the words potentially created jury confusion as to the type of involvement necessary for a defendant to be guilty of aiding and abetting; it allows a conviction for knowing participation without also requiring intent; and a mere cover-up is not sufficient for conviction as a principal. ś 124. As for instructions 10 and 11 allegedly allowing a jury to find a defendant guilty without finding that a defendant intended to aid and abet each element of the crime, we are unpersuaded. When viewing instructions 10 and 11 in conjunction with instructions 2-4, which define the elements of murder, it is clear that the jury cannot convict without first determining that the elements of the crime, murder, have been proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the jury cannot reach any of the other requirements in the instructions without first determining that the elements of murder are satisfied, and the defendant intended to aid and abet said elements of said crime. In the alternative a manslaughter instruction was given to the jury to consider. ś 125. Instruction 8, by its terms requires the jury to find a defendant not guilty unless you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he actively, knowingly and willingly participated in the murder .... and he must act with knowledge and deliberation and have some cognizant involvement on his part to commit a crime. This instruction as well as instruction number 10 go well beyond a mere cover-up and require knowledge and intent. ś 126. When read as a whole, the instructions adequately informed the jury. This issue is without merit.