granting instruction in Mississippi

2006"Errors based on the granting of an instruction will not be considered *1264 on appeal unless specific objections stating the grounds are made in trial court." Oates v. State, 421 So.2d 1025, 1030 (Miss.1982).

2003"Errors based on the granting of an instruction will not be considered on appeal unless specific objections stating the grounds are made in the trial court." Collins v. State, 368 So.2d 212 (Miss.1979); Oates v. State, 421 So.2d 1025, 1030 (Miss. 1982). ¶ 94.

1996"Under ordinary rules of construction, all that was not unequivocally and specifically reserved was conveyed by the granting clause." Thornhill v. System Fuels, Inc., 523 So.2d 983, 989 (Miss. 1988).

1993"Under ordinary rules of construction, all that was not unequivocally and specifically reserved was conveyed by the granting clause." Thornhill v. System Fuels, Inc., 523 So. 2d 983, 989 (Miss. 1988).

2007King also relies on Fuselier v. State, 468 So.2d 45, 55 (Miss.1985), which states "[a]bsent a clear showing that the prospective juror would be unable to follow the court's instructions and obey the juror's oath, that juror's feelings regarding the death penalty do not constitute grounds for a challenge and the granting of such a challenge is reversible error." ś 40.

2007King also relies on Fuselier v. State, 468 So.2d 45, 55 (Miss.1985), which states “[ajbsent a clear showing that the prospective juror would be unable to follow the court’s instructions and obey the juror’s oath, that juror’s feelings regarding the death penalty do not constitute grounds for a challenge and the granting of such a challenge is reversible error.” ¶ 40.

1994Haddox v. State, 636 So. 2d 1229, 1240 (Miss. 1994) (the assertion on appeal of grounds for an objection [to a jury instruction] which was not the assertion at trial is not an issue properly preserved on appeal.).

1994Haddox v. State, 636 So. 2d 1229, 1240 (Miss. 1994) (the assertion on appeal of grounds for an objection [to a jury instruction] which was not the assertion at trial is not an issue properly preserved on appeal.).

1996Stewart v. State, 226 So.2d 911, 912 (Miss. 1969) (citing Chinn v. State, 210 So.2d 666 (Miss. 1968); Hydrick v. State, 246 Miss. 448 , 150 So.2d 423 (1963)).

1973We specifically condemned similar instructions in Blackwell v. State, 257 So.2d 855 (Miss. 1972), and Stewart v. State, 226 So.2d 911 (Miss. 1969). *682 The granting of this instruction constituted reversible error.

2025“We think that the provision added by the grantor, to-wit ‘grantor or his successor reserve all rights of sale and management’ is an illegal and void restraint upon alienation and repugnant to the granting clause of [a] deed.” Dukes v. Crumpton, 233 Miss. 611 , 103 So. 2d 385, 388 (1958) (noting that retaining the right to sell the land transferred renders the deed invalid).

2025“We think that the provision added by the grantor, to-wit ‘grantor or his successor reserve all rights of sale and management’ is an illegal and void restraint upon alienation and repugnant to the granting clause of [a] deed.” Dukes v. Crumpton, 233 Miss. 611 , 103 So. 2d 385, 388 (1958) (noting that retaining the right to sell the land transferred renders the deed invalid).

2004Presiding Judge Southwick, in a concurring opinion, pointed out that "[t]here is ambiguity in what occurred." [5] Friley, 856 So.2d at 656 (Southwick, P.J., concurring).

2001Presiding Judge Southwick, in a concurring opinion, pointed out that "[t]here is ambiguity in what occurred."5 Friley, 856 So. 2d at 656 (Southwick, P.J., concurring).

2003See Montana, 822 So.2d at 962 ; Williams, 803 So.2d at 1161 . ¶ 76.

2001See Montana, 822 So. 2d at 962 ; Williams, 803 So. 2d at 1161 . ¶76.

2001Downtown Grill, Inc. v. Connell, 721 So.2d 1113, 1120 (Miss.1998) (citing Tipps Tool Co. v. Holifield, 218 Miss. 670 , 67 So.2d 609 (1953)).

1999Downtown Grill, Inc. v. Connell, 721 So. 2d 1113, 1120 (Miss. 1998) (citing Tipps Tool Co. v. Holifield, 218 Miss. 670 , 67 So. 2d 609 (1953)).

1999See generally Woodward, 726 So.2d at 541 (the fact that the defendant threw the murder weapon in a creek could reasonably indicate that he did not want to be arrested). b.

1995See generally Woodward, 726 So. 2d at 541 (the fact that the defendant threw the murder weapon in a creek could reasonably indicate that he did not want to be arrested). b.

1998However, in Catchings , the Court went on to hold that Where deliberate design and manslaughter instructions are given, and "where under the evidence the jury might reasonably have concluded that the defendant acted in the heat of passion, we will ... ordinarily reverse." Blanks v. State, 542 So.2d 222, 227 (Miss.1989) However, in Nicolaou v. State, 534 So.2d 168 (Miss.1988), this Court held that giving the "deliberate design" instruction and a manslaughter instruction was harmless error where the manslaughter instruction was not warranted under the evidence of the case.

1998However, in Catchings , the Court went on to hold that Where deliberate design and manslaughter instructions are given, and "where under the evidence the jury might reasonably have concluded that the defendant acted in the heat of passion, we will . . . ordinarily reverse." Blanks v. State , 542 So.2d 222 , 227 (Miss. 1989) However, in Nicolaou v. State, 534 So.2d 168 (Miss. 1988), this Court held that giving the "deliberate design" instruction and a manslaughter instruction was harmless error where the manslaughter instruction was not warranted under the evidence of the case.

1996The Lewis family contends that the granting of instruction D-6 was reversible error, and cites Griffin v. Fletcher, 362 So.2d 594, 596 (Miss. 1978).

1992The Lewis family contends that the granting of instruction D-6 was reversible error, and cites Griffin v. Fletcher, 362 So. 2d 594, 596 (Miss. 1978).

1992Note the vague and general language used, "failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the operation of their vehicles" and "that such failure, if any proximately caused or contributed to the collision between all three vehicles of the Defendants, then you are under a sworn duty to find for the Plaintiff and against all three Defendants." A similar vague and general instruction on negligence was soundly condemned in the case of Meridian City Lines, et al. v. Baker, 206 Miss. 58, 83 , 39 So.2d 541, 545 (1949).

1992Note the vague and general language used, "failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the operation of their vehicles" and "that such failure, if any proximately caused or contributed to the collision between all three vehicles of the Defendants, then you are under a sworn duty to find for the Plaintiff and against all three Defendants." A similar vague and general instruction on negligence was soundly condemned in the case of Meridian City Lines, et al. v. Baker, 206 Miss. 58, 83 , 39 So.2d 541, 545 (1949).

1992Code Ann. § 97-5-39 (2) was amended, effective April 21, 1989, to require merely that the defendant *321 intentionally injured the child "in such a manner as to cause serious bodily harm." Instruction SGP-3 granted to the State instructed the jury under the amended version of the statute, authorizing a conviction if the injury was in such a manner as to cause "serious bodily injury." Although Butler is procedurally barred on this appeal from arguing the granting of this instruction was error because she did not object to it at trial, Colburn v. State, 431 So.2d 1111, 1113-14 (Miss. 1983), on r

1985Colburn v. State, 431 So.2d 1111 (Miss. 1983).

1958In the case of Dale v. Case, 217 Miss. 298 , 64 So. 2d 344 , we laid down a number of rules to be used in the construction of deeds, one of which is that where two clauses of a deed are repugnant, the first must prevail, or that an attempted reservation is void when repugnant to the granting clause, cannot be invoked where, from an examination of the whole instrument, the intention of the parties thereto is plain.

1958In the case of Dale v. Case, 217 Miss. 298 , 64 So. 2d 344 , we laid down a number of rules to be used in the construction of deeds, one of which is that where two clauses of a deed are repugnant, the first must prevail, or that an attempted reservation is void when repugnant to the granting clause, cannot be invoked where, from an examination of the whole instrument, the intention of the parties thereto is plain.

1975See Calicoat v. State, 131 Miss. 169 , 95 So. 318 ; Bradford v. State, Miss., 161 So. 138 , where many cases are cited to this effect. (194 So. at 921-922).

1975See Calicoat v. State, 131 Miss. 169 , 95 So. 318 ; Bradford v. State, Miss., 161 So. 138 , where many cases are cited to this effect. (194 So. at 921-922).