evidence supports instruction in Mississippi

2025Our precedent is clear that “[a] defendant has an ‘absolute right’ to a jury instruction for a lesser-included offense if the evidence supports such an instruction.” Brown, 285 So. 3d at 676 (¶12) (emphasis added). “[A] lesser-included offense is one in which all the essential ingredients are contained in the offense for which the accused is indicted[.]” Eubanks v. State, 341 So. 3d 896 , 913 (¶62) (Miss. 2022) (quoting Downs v. State, 962 So. 2d 1255,1261 (¶23) (Miss. 2007)). ¶35.

2024When a defendant argues “that he was entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction, we conduct de novo review, as this is a question of law.” Downs, 962 So. 2d at 1258 (¶10). “[A] defendant has an absolute right to have the jury instructed on . . . lesser-included offenses if the evidence supports such an instruction, and there is reversible error in not giving the lesser-included offense instruction.” Id. at 1260 (¶22) (quotation marks omitted).

2019When a defendant “claim[s] that he was entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction, we conduct de novo review, as this is a question of law.” Downs v. State, 962 So. 2d 1255, 1258 (¶10) (Miss. 2007). “[A] defendant has an absolute right to have the jury instructed on . . . lesser-included offenses if the evidence supports such an instruction, and there is ‘reversible error in not giving the lesser-included offense instruction.’” Id. at 1260 (¶22) (quoting Fairchild v. State, 459 So. 2d 793, 801 (Miss. 1984)). “[A] lesser-included offense is one in which all the essential ingredients are

2007We begin our analysis of this issue by observing that a defendant has an absolute right to have the jury instructed on lesser-included offenses if the evidence supports such an instruction, and there is "reversible error in not giving the lesser-included offense instruction." Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d 793, 801 (Miss.1984) ( citing Lanier v. State, 450 So.2d 69, 80 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 23.

2008Reynolds v. State, 658 So.2d 852, 855-56 (Miss.1995).

2008Reynolds v. State, 658 So.2d 852, 855-56 (Miss.1995).

2007We begin our analysis of this issue by observing that a defendant has an absolute right to have the jury instructed on lesser-included offenses if the evidence supports such an instruction, and there is "reversible error in not giving the lesser-included offense instruction." Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d 793, 801 (Miss.1984) ( citing Lanier v. State, 450 So.2d 69, 80 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 23.

2005We begin our analysis of this issue by observing that a defendant has an absolute right to have the jury instructed on lesser-included offenses if the evidence supports such an instruction, and there is “reversible error in not giving the lesser-included offense 9 instruction.” Fairchild v. State, 459 So. 2d 793, 801 (Miss. 1984) (citing Lanier v. State, 450 So. 2d 69, 80 (Miss. 1984)). ¶23.

2025Conversely, “an offense whose essential elements are not included . . . [in] the offense(s) charged in the indictment” is “a lesser-nonincluded-offense.” Hye v. State, 162 So. 3d 750, 753 (¶6) (Miss. 2015) (emphasis added).

2024Applying this statute, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that if “(1) the lesser offense is necessarily included within the statutory definition of the charged offense, or (2) the indictment contains such allegations that a lesser offense is necessarily charged in the indictment, then the state may receive the benefit of [section] 99-19-5 if the evidence supports an instruction on the lesser offense.” State v. Shaw, 880 So. 2d 296, 300 (¶14) (Miss. 2004) (quoting Hailey v. State, 537 So. 2d 411, 416 (Miss. 1988)). ¶12.

2024Applying this statute, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that if “(1) the lesser offense is necessarily included within the statutory definition of the charged offense, or (2) the indictment contains such allegations that a lesser offense is necessarily charged in the indictment, then the state may receive the benefit of [section] 99-19-5 if the evidence supports an instruction on the lesser offense.” State v. Shaw, 880 So. 2d 296, 300 (¶14) (Miss. 2004) (quoting Hailey v. State, 537 So. 2d 411, 416 (Miss. 1988)). ¶12.

2024When we review the refusal of a lesser-included-offense instruction, “[w]e must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, draw all reasonable inferences in his favor, and take into account that the jury may not be required to believe any evidence offered by the State.” Gilmore v. State, 119 So. 3d 278, 286 (¶13) (Miss. 2013) (quotation marks omitted).

2019When a defendant “claim[s] that he was entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction, we conduct de novo review, as this is a question of law.” Downs v. State, 962 So. 2d 1255, 1258 (¶10) (Miss. 2007). “[A] defendant has an absolute right to have the jury instructed on . . . lesser-included offenses if the evidence supports such an instruction, and there is ‘reversible error in not giving the lesser-included offense instruction.’” Id. at 1260 (¶22) (quoting Fairchild v. State, 459 So. 2d 793, 801 (Miss. 1984)). “[A] lesser-included offense is one in which all the essential ingredients are

2019See, e.g., Downs, 962 So. 2d at 1260 (¶22) (“[A] defendant has an absolute right to have the jury instructed on lesser-included offenses if the evidence supports such an instruction, and there is reversible error in not giving the lesser-included offense instruction.”); Smith v. State, 725 So. 2d 922, 927 (¶10) (Miss.

2015Nevertheless, a defendant enjoys “an absolute right to have the jury instructed on lesser included offenses if the evidence supports such an instruction.” Leagea v. State, 138 So.3d 184, 188 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (quoting Downs v. State, 962 So.2d 1255, 1260 (¶22) (Miss.2007)).

2013And “[d]efendants are entitled to have instructions on their theory of the case presented to the jury for which there is foundation in evidence, even though the evidence might be weak, insufficient, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility.” Welch v. State, 566 So.2d 680, 684 (Miss.1990).