circumstantial evidence instruction in Mississippi

2021The majority provides no rational reason and no explanation for its claim that the circumstantial evidence instruction suddenly has become so mischievous and so detrimental to the public that it must be condemned to oblivion. 8 See Mack, 481 So. 2d at 797 (Robertson, J., concurring) (“If an accused’s guilt is established to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, then it may be said that he has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2021This Court has held that, when a case lacks direct evidence, a defendant is entitled to a circumstantial evidence instruction that requires the jury to “find that each element of the offense has been established beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.” Mack v. State, 481 So. 2d 793, 794 (Miss. 1985) (citing Keys v. State, 478 So. 2d 266 (Miss. 1985)); see also Moore v. State, 247 So. 3d 1198, 1203 (Miss. 2018) (“[w]here the State ‘is without a confession and wholly without eyewitness testimony to the gravamen of the offense charg

2020“The Rule in Mississippi is that a circumstantial evidence instruction should be given only when the prosecution can produce neither eyewitness or a confession to the offense charged.” Stringfellow v. State, 595 So. 2d 1320, 1322 (Miss. 1992).

2018Moore contends that, under Stringfellow v. State , a circumstantial evidence instruction " 'should be given only when the prosecution can produce neither eyewitnesses [nor] a confession to the offense charged.' " See Stringfellow v. State , 595 So.2d 1320 , 1322 (Miss. 1992).

2008A circumstantial evidence instruction is required "only when the prosecution can produce neither an eyewitness nor a confession/statement by the defendant." Rubenstein, 941 So.2d at 785 (quoting Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 750 (Miss.1991)).

2008A circumstantial evidence instruction is required "only when the prosecution can produce neither an eyewitness nor a confession/statement by the defendant." Rubenstein, 941 So.2d at 785 (quoting Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 750 (Miss.1991)).

2021This Court has held that, when a case lacks direct evidence, a defendant is entitled to a circumstantial evidence instruction that requires the jury to “find that each element of the offense has been established beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.” Mack v. State, 481 So. 2d 793, 794 (Miss. 1985) (citing Keys v. State, 478 So. 2d 266 (Miss. 1985)); see also Moore v. State, 247 So. 3d 1198, 1203 (Miss. 2018) (“[w]here the State ‘is without a confession and wholly without eyewitness testimony to the gravamen of the offense charg

2014A circumstantial-evidence instruction “must be given only where the prosecution is without a confession and wholly without eyewitnesses to the gravamen of the offense charged.” Id.

2013In fact, “any direct evidence eliminates the need for a circumstantial evidence instruction.” Starks v. State, 798 So.2d 562, 566 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (citing Sullivan v. State, 749 So.2d 983, 992 (¶ 21) (Miss.1999)).

2010“The existence of any direct evidence eliminates the need for a circumstantial evidence instruction.” Sullivan v. State, 749 So.2d 983, 992 (¶21) (Miss.1999).

2005Both of the proposed instructions dealt with instructing the jury on circumstantial evidence. "[W]here there is direct evidence of a crime, the circumstantial evidence instruction need not be given." King v. State, 580 So.2d 1182, 1191 (Miss.1991) (citing Gray v. State, 549 So.2d 1316, 1324 (Miss.1989)).

2003Both of the proposed instructions dealt with instructing the jury on circumstantial evidence. “[W]here there is direct evidence of a crime, the circumstantial evidence instruction need not be given.” King v. State, 580 So. 2d 1182, 1191 (Miss. 1991) (citing Gray v. State, 549 So. 2d 1316, 1324 (Miss. 1989)).

2021“A circumstantial-evidence instruction provides that the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.” McInnis v. State, 61 So. 3d 872, 875-76 (Miss. 2011) (citing State v. Rogers, 847 So. 2d 858, 864 (Miss. 2003)).

2021“A circumstantial-evidence instruction provides that the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.” McInnis v. State, 61 So. 3d 872, 875-76 (¶11) (Miss. 2011) (emphasis omitted).

2008Clark v. State, 503 So.2d 277, 279 (Miss.1987) (quoting Bunkley v. State, 495 So.2d 1, 4 (Miss.1986)).

2000A circumstantial evidence instruction should be given only when "the prosecution can produce neither eyewitnesses or a confession to the offense charged." McNeal v. State, 551 So.2d 151, 157-59 (Miss.1989); Clark v. State, 503 So.2d 277, 279 (Miss.1987); Keys v. State, 478 So.2d 266, 267 (Miss.1985); Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 750 (Miss.1991).

2008A two- theory instruction instructs the jury what to do when the “record supports two or more hypotheses of the crime committed” and all the evidence of the crime is circumstantial.11 This court recently has held that a trial court may refuse a two-theory instruction if it has granted a (general) circumstantial-evidence instruction.12 A circumstantial-evidence instruction provides that the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.13 In this case, 9 Jones v. State, 797 So. 2d 922, 927 (Miss. 2001)

2003In circumstantial evidence cases, however, we say that the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence." Jones v. State, 797 So.2d 922, 928-29 (Miss.2001), clarifies this point by stating "the trial court in this case did grant the typical circumstantial evidence instruction.

2013“The defendant is not entitled to a circumstantial evidence instruction where both circumstantial and direct evidence are admitted at trial.” Id. at 292 (¶ 17) (citing Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661, 663-64 (Miss.1971)). ¶ 6.

2009“The defendant is not entitled to a circumstantial evidence instruction where both circumstantial and direct evidence are admitted at trial.” Garrett, 921 So.2d at 292 (¶ 17) (citing Gilleylen v. State, 255 So.2d 661, 663-64 (Miss.1971)). ¶ 19.

2006See, e.g., Collins v. State, 447 So.2d 645, 646 (Miss.1984); King v. State, 315 So.2d 925, 926 (Miss.1975); Love v. State, 208 So.2d 755, 757 (Miss. 1968).

1986"Where a conviction is based upon eyewitness testimony, the refusal of [the circumstantial evidence instruction] is proper." Collins v. State, 447 So.2d 645, 646 (Miss. 1984).

2010Moreover, as Justice Robertson noted in his concurring opinion in Montgomery v. State, 515 So.2d 845, 849 (Miss.1987), the appropriate standard of proof in criminal cases should be “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Justice Robertson also observed “that the circumstantial-evidence rule and the perception upon which it is based is really much ado about nothing.” Id. at 851 .

2010Moreover, as Justice Robertson noted in his concurring opinion in Montgomery v. State, 515 So.2d 845, 849 (Miss.1987), the appropriate standard of proof in criminal cases should be “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Justice Robertson also observed “that the circumstantial-evidence rule and the perception upon which it is based is really much ado about nothing.” Id. at 851 .

2006See, e.g., Collins v. State, 447 So.2d 645, 646 (Miss.1984); King v. State, 315 So.2d 925, 926 (Miss.1975); Love v. State, 208 So.2d 755, 757 (Miss. 1968).

2004See, e.g., Collins v. State, 447 So.2d 645, 646 (Miss. 1984); King v. State, 315 So.2d 925, 926 (Miss. 1975); Love v. State, 208 So.2d 755, 757 (Miss. 1968).

2006See, e.g., Collins v. State, 447 So.2d 645, 646 (Miss.1984); King v. State, 315 So.2d 925, 926 (Miss.1975); Love v. State, 208 So.2d 755, 757 (Miss. 1968).

2004See, e.g., Collins v. State, 447 So.2d 645, 646 (Miss. 1984); King v. State, 315 So.2d 925, 926 (Miss. 1975); Love v. State, 208 So.2d 755, 757 (Miss. 1968).

2017Flowers, however, relies on the Court's opinion in McNeal v. State , 551 So.2d 151 (Miss. 1989), for the proposition that jailhouse informant testimony should not serve as a basis for refusing a circumstantial-evidence instruction when the informant's credibility is questionable.

2017Id. at 158-59 ("It is doubtful that such testimony should be considered as direct evidence which would prevent the granting of a circumstantial evidence instruction; however, we do not decide that question here, nor is it necessary, because we find merit and reverse under [another] assignment of error."). ¶ 162.

2018The supreme court has also clarified "that confession takes the case out of a circumstantial context" and "makes a circumstantial evidence instruction inapplicable." Taylor v. State , 672 So.2d 1246 , 1270 (Miss. 1996) (holding that a circumstantial evidence instruction was inapplicable where a witness testified at trial that the defendant confessed to her that he killed his stepdaughter); see also Mack v. State , 481 So.2d 793 , 795 (Miss. 1985) (holding that an admission by a defendant to his girlfriend of an alleged burglary was a "confession," and constituted direct evidence of the crime;

2004However, in Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246, 1270 (Miss.1996), we held that an admission as to an important element of the alleged crime obviates the need for a circumstantial evidence instruction.

2004That is, “[t]here is no reason on principle why an admission by the defendant on a significant element of the offense should not also operate to render unnecessary the circumstantial evidence instruction.” Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239, 1256 (Miss.1993) (overruled, on other grounds by Weatherspoon v. State, 732 So.2d 158, 162 (Miss.1999)).

2004Further, the Court has stated “There is no reason on principle why an admission by the defendant on a significant element of the offense should not also operate to render unnecessary the circumstantial evidence instruction.” Conner, 632 So.2d at 1256 .

2018"A defendant is entitled to a circumstantial-evidence instruction ... only when the case against him is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence." Grayer v. State , 120 So.3d 964 , 968 (¶ 11) (Miss. 2013). "[E]xamples of direct evidence include an admission or confession by the defendant to 'a significant element of the offense,' or eyewitness testimony 'to the gravamen of the offense charged.' " Kirkwood v. State , 52 So.3d 1184 , 1187 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2011) (quoting Mack v. State , 481 So.2d 793 , 795 (Miss. 1985) ).

2013In Kirkwood v. State, 52 So.3d 1184, 1187 (Miss.2011), this Court explained that direct evidence includes “an admission or confession by the defendant to ‘a significant element of the offense,’ or eyewitness testimony ‘to the gravamen of the offense charged.’ ” The Court also found in Kirkwood that, because there was no direct evidence of a crime, the defendant was entitled to a circumstantial-evidence instruction.

2005Both of the proposed instructions dealt with instructing the jury on circumstantial evidence. "[W]here there is direct evidence of a crime, the circumstantial evidence instruction need not be given." King v. State, 580 So.2d 1182, 1191 (Miss.1991) (citing Gray v. State, 549 So.2d 1316, 1324 (Miss.1989)).

2003Both of the proposed instructions dealt with instructing the jury on circumstantial evidence. “[W]here there is direct evidence of a crime, the circumstantial evidence instruction need not be given.” King v. State, 580 So. 2d 1182, 1191 (Miss. 1991) (citing Gray v. State, 549 So. 2d 1316, 1324 (Miss. 1989)).

2006“A circumstantial evidence instruction must be given unless there is some type of direct evidence such as eyewitness testimony, dying declaration, or confession or admission of the accused.” Deal v. State, 589 So.2d 1257, 1260 (Miss.1991) (citing Mack v. State, 481 So.2d 793, 795 (Miss.1985)).

2003A circumstantial evidence instruction “must be given unless there is some type of direct evidence such as eyewitness testimony, dying declaration, or confession or admission of the accused.” Deal v. State, 589 So.2d 1257, 1260 (Miss.1991).

1996This Court has held that a circumstantial evidence instruction is necessary only where the evidence is "wholly circumstantial." Windham v. State, 602 So.2d 798, 800 (Miss. 1992).

1995A circumstantial evidence instruction is given where the evidence is "wholly circumstantial." Windham v. State, 602 So. 2d 798, 800 (Miss. 1992).

2021These instructions apply in purely circumstantial evidence cases only, which usually are “[w]here the State ‘is without a confession and wholly without 28 eyewitness testimony to the gravamen of the offense charged[.]’” Moore, 247 So. 3d at 1201 (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Burleson, 166 So. 3d at 509 )); see also DePriest v. State, 377 So. 2d 615, 617 (Miss. 1979) (“Not being a wholly circumstantial evidence case, the trial court was correct in not giving a circumstantial evidence instruction[.]”).

2021This Court has held that, when a case lacks direct evidence, a defendant is entitled to a circumstantial evidence instruction that requires the jury to “find that each element of the offense has been established beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.” Mack v. State, 481 So. 2d 793, 794 (Miss. 1985) (citing Keys v. State, 478 So. 2d 266 (Miss. 1985)); see also Moore v. State, 247 So. 3d 1198, 1203 (Miss. 2018) (“[w]here the State ‘is without a confession and wholly without eyewitness testimony to the gravamen of the offense charg

2017See Foster v. State, 508 So. 2d 1111, 1115 (Miss. 1987) (Court held that without “jailhouse confession” the case would have been entirely circumstantial).

2017See Foster v. State , 508 So.2d 1111 , 1115 (Miss. 1987) (Court held that without "jailhouse confession" the case would have been entirely circumstantial).

2014In Petti v. State, 666 So.2d 754, 756-57 (Miss.1995), a circumstantial evidence instruction was refused where the defendant had rented a hotel room that was occupied by at least one other person. ¶ 16.

2014In Petti v. State, 666 So.2d 754, 756-57 (Miss.1995), a circumstantial evidence instruction was refused where the defendant had rented a hotel room that was occupied by at least one other person. ¶ 16.

2008Id. (citing Lynch v. State, 877 So.2d 1254, 1265 (¶ 23) (Miss.2004)). ¶ 34.

2006Lynch v. State, 877 So.2d 1254, 1264 (Miss.2004); Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239, 1256 (Miss.1993); Mack v. State, 481 So.2d 793, 795 (Miss.1985).

2014Cf Tanner v. State, 764 So.2d 385, 395 (Miss.2000) (finding juror’s statement that he would need a circumstantial-evidence instruction to “remove all reasonable doubt whatsoever in his mind,” which is not the law in Mississippi, to be a valid race-neutral reason for a peremptory strike); Manning v. State, 735 So.2d 323, 339 (Miss.1999) (finding juror’s disagreement with death penalty to be a sufficient race-neutral basis for upholding a peremptory strike against her).

2006Finally, "an admission by the defendant on a significant element of the offense . . . operate[s] to render unnecessary the circumstantial evidence instruction." Manning, 735 So.2d at 338 . ś 226.

2023In overruling the prior cases requiring the “circumstantial evidence instruction,” the supreme court held in Nevels v. State, 325 So. 3d 30 627, 634 (¶20) (Miss. 2021): We expressly overrule Moore, 247 So. 3d 1198 , and the circumstantial evidence instruction cases on which that opinion relies.

2023Further, “the jury must be correctly and fully instructed regarding each element of the offense charged.” Id.2 To 2 Although no circumstantial evidence instruction was given in this case, according to our Supreme Court’s decision in Nevels v. State, 326 So. 3d 627 (Miss. 2021), a circumstantial evidence instruction is no longer required: We expressly overrule [Moore v. State, 247 So. 3d 1198 (Miss. 2018)], and the circumstantial evidence instruction cases on which that opinion relies . . . .

2017Jenkins, 757 So. 2d at 1009 (¶20); see also Givens v. State, 618 So. 2d 1313, 1319 (Miss. 1993) (finding that a defendant was not entitled to a circumstantial-evidence instruction in view of direct eyewitness testimony of a police officer who saw the defendant throw away a bag that contained contraband). ¶10.

2000See also Givens v. State, 618 So.2d 1313, 1318 (Miss.1993) (stating that where all the evidence tending to prove the guilt of the defendant is circumstantial, the trial court must grant a jury instruction that every reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt must be excluded in order to convict). *448 However, while a circumstantial evidence instruction may be appropriate, it remains incumbent upon the defendant to request such an instruction.

2003Arguelles asserts that attempting to prove constructive possession *1042 of the marijuana by her requires a circumstantial evidence instruction since "proof of constructive possession is by its very nature circumstantial." Burnham v. State, 467 So.2d 946, 947 (Miss.1985) (citing Henderson v. State, 453 So.2d 708 (Miss. 1984)).

2002Additionally, the State directs us to the pronouncement in Henderson v. State, 453 So.2d 708, 710 (Miss.1984), that “[wjhere all the evidence tending to prove the guilt of the defendant is circumstantial, the trial court must grant a jury instruction that every reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt must be excluded in order to convict.” However, the State, citing Gray v. State, 549 So.2d 1316, 1324 (Miss.1989), argues that where there is direct evidence of a crime, a circumstantial evidence instruction need not be given.