Opinion ID: 1655709
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the lower court erred in granting an instruction on deliberate design?

Text: ¶ 19. Theodore argues that the court granted both a deliberate design instruction (S-2) and a manslaughter instruction (D-11) and this constituted an incompatibility between the two. Theodore cites to Windham v. State, 520 So.2d 123 (Miss.1987) where this Court held that the deliberate design instruction was erroneous. In that case, the State was granted an instruction that stated deliberate design could be formed at the very moment of the fatal beating. Id. at 125. This Court held that instruction conflicted with the manslaughter instruction which defined manslaughter as the willful, felonious killing of a human being, without malice in the heat of passion, by the use of a dangerous weapon, without authority of law and not in necessary self-defense. Id. at 125. The controversial language in the deliberate design instruction in that case was at the very moment. ¶ 20. The Court held that the words deliberate and design have general and accepted meanings. Id. at 126. As defined in dictionaries, deliberate indicates full awareness of what one is doing and generally implies careful and unhurried consideration of the consequences. Id. At the same time, design means to calculate, plan, and contemplate. Id. For these reasons, this Court held that while deliberate design can be formed very quickly, and perhaps moments before, it is a contradiction in terms to say that deliberate design can be formed at the very moment of the fatal act. Id. The Court stated that the language in the instruction at the very moment improperly ruled out any possibility of manslaughter. Therefore, this Court reversed on that error. ¶ 21. The case sub judice is distinguishable from Windham. Here, Jury Instruction S-2 provided: The Court instructs the Jury that deliberate design as used elsewhere in these instructions, means intent to kill, without authority of law and not being legally justifiable or legally excusable. A deliberate design cannot be formed at the very moment of the fatal act, however, the deliberate design need not exist in the mind of the Defendant for any definite time, not for hours, days, or even minutes, but if there is deliberate design, and it exists in the mind of the Defendant but for an instant before the fatal act, this is sufficient deliberate design to constitute the offense of Murder. (emphasis added). ¶ 22. The jury instruction here specifically stated that deliberate design cannot be formed at the very moment of the fatal act. For this reason, the problem that existed in Windham does not exist here. These cases are distinguishable; and therefore, Windham does not apply to the facts of this case. ¶ 23. In Carr v. State, 655 So.2d 824, 847 (Miss.1995), this Court held that a similar jury instruction on deliberate design did not involve the at the very moment of the fatal act problem. This Court held that there was no flaw in the instruction given on deliberate design as it specifically stated that deliberate design could not be formed at the very moment of the fatal act. Id. at 847. For this reason, this Court held that the pitfall of Windham was therefore avoided. Id. ¶ 24. This Court concludes that the facts of this case are more closely related to the Carr decision. Jury instruction S-2 did not contain the at the very moment language. To the contrary, the instruction specifically noted that deliberate design cannot be formed at the very moment of the fatal act. For this reason, this instruction did not preclude the possibility of manslaughter as in Windham. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.