self-defense instruction in Mississippi

2010Instruction number 6 was a nearly verbatim statement of the self-defense instruction this Court recommended in Robinson v. State, 434 So.2d 206, 207 (Miss.1983), overruled on other grounds by Flowers v. State, 473 So.2d 164, 165 (Miss.1985), and Reddix v. State, 731 So.2d 591, 595 (Miss.1999). .

2010But instruction number 2 told the jury that "the State [has] the burden of proving the defendant guilty of every material element of the crime ..." and that "[t]he defendant is not required to prove his innocence." This instruction survives the Pierce rule, since it informed the jury that it should not look to Maye to prove self-defense, but to the State to prove the lack thereof. [2] Instruction number 6 was a nearly verbatim statement of the self-defense instruction this Court recommended in Robinson v. State, 434 So.2d 206, 207 (Miss. 1983), overruled on other grounds by Flowers v. State, 4

2010Instruction number 6 was a nearly verbatim statement of the self-defense instruction this Court recommended in Robinson v. State, 434 So.2d 206, 207 (Miss.1983), overruled on other grounds by Flowers v. State, 473 So.2d 164, 165 (Miss.1985), and Reddix v. State, 731 So.2d 591, 595 (Miss.1999). .

2010But instruction number 2 told the jury that "the State [has] the burden of proving the defendant guilty of every material element of the crime ..." and that "[t]he defendant is not required to prove his innocence." This instruction survives the Pierce rule, since it informed the jury that it should not look to Maye to prove self-defense, but to the State to prove the lack thereof. [2] Instruction number 6 was a nearly verbatim statement of the self-defense instruction this Court recommended in Robinson v. State, 434 So.2d 206, 207 (Miss. 1983), overruled on other grounds by Flowers v. State, 4

2010Instruction number 6 was a nearly verbatim statement of the self-defense instruction this Court recommended in Robinson v. State, 434 So.2d 206, 207 (Miss.1983), overruled on other grounds by Flowers v. State, 473 So.2d 164, 165 (Miss.1985), and Reddix v. State, 731 So.2d 591, 595 (Miss.1999). .

2010But instruction number 2 told the jury that "the State [has] the burden of proving the defendant guilty of every material element of the crime ..." and that "[t]he defendant is not required to prove his innocence." This instruction survives the Pierce rule, since it informed the jury that it should not look to Maye to prove self-defense, but to the State to prove the lack thereof. [2] Instruction number 6 was a nearly verbatim statement of the self-defense instruction this Court recommended in Robinson v. State, 434 So.2d 206, 207 (Miss. 1983), overruled on other grounds by Flowers v. State, 4

2017Ct. App. 2003) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a self-defense instruction where the defendant denied any contact with the victim); cf. Morgan, 117 So. 3d at 622-24 (¶¶13-17) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s requested instruction on imperfect self-defense because “the only theory presented through witnesses called by the defense was that [the defendant] was not the shooter”). ¶18.

2017Ct. App. 2003) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a self-defense instruction where the defendant denied any contact with the victim); cf. Morgan , 117 So.3d at 622-24 (¶¶ 13-17) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's requested instruction on imperfect self-defense because "the only theory presented through witnesses called by the defense was that [the defendant] was not the shooter"). ¶ 17.

2017Additionally, the State relies on Taylor v. State, 597 So.2d 192, 194 (Miss. 1992)—in which the supreme court held that a self-defense instruction was improper where the defendant alleged accident or excusable homicide • throughout his trial—to argue that Clark similarly *847 alleged that he shot Wren by accident.

2010“Not every instruction need cover every point of importance, so long as the point is fairly presented elsewhere.” Taylor v. State, 597 So.2d 192, 195 (Miss.1992).

2017Ct. App. 1998), the defendant was charged with assaulting a police officer and requested a self-defense instruction even though he “denied ever kneeing or otherwise hitting the officer.” Id. at 1233 (¶¶6-7).

2017Ct. App. 1998), the defendant was charged with assaulting a police officer and requested a self-defense instruction even though he "denied ever kneeing or otherwise hitting the officer." Id. at 1233 (¶¶ 6-7).

2013See Johnson v. State, 29 So.3d 738, 746 (Miss.2009).

2010However, for a self-defense claim to be valid, a defendant must have acted “in response to an urgent actual threat or on a reasonable belief that such threat [was] actual or imminent.” Johnson v. State, 29 So.3d 738, 746 (¶ 24) (Miss.2009) (citation omitted).

2024See id., at 540-41 (¶¶23-24) (finding no ineffective assistance in defense counsel’s request for a self-defense instruction that contained nearly identical language); Duke v. State, 146 So. 3d 401 , 405 n.2 (Miss.

2017Id. at 405-06 (¶ 16) ; see also McIntosh v. State , 749 So.2d 1235 , 1240 (¶ 17) (Miss.

2017Id. at 405-06 (¶16); see also McIntosh v. State, 749 So. 2d 1235, 1240 (¶17) (Miss.

2017Id. at 405-06 (¶ 16) ; see also McIntosh v. State , 749 So.2d 1235 , 1240 (¶ 17) (Miss.

2019The Court of Appeals rejected Williams's argument that "the trial court should have allowed a self-defense exception for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon because it allowed a self-defense instruction for manslaughter...." Id. at 263 (¶ 8).

2019The Court of Appeals rejected Williams's argument that "the trial court should have allowed a self-defense exception for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon because it allowed a self-defense instruction for manslaughter...." Id. at 263 (¶ 8).

2018Id. at 1089-90 (¶¶17-22).

2018Id. at 1089 (¶ 18).

2016While older cases recognize that intoxication may be relevant in. a self-defense claim, more modern precedent' “emphasizes not whether the victim is intoxicated, but the victim’s propensity for violence at the time of the crime.” Rouster v. State, 981 So.2d 314, 320 (1117) (Miss.Ct.App.2007), ¶ 10.

2016The “purpose of introducing character evidence of the victim’s intoxication is to further the defendant’s self-defense claim by proving the victim, who had a propensity for violence, became more violent after intoxication.” Id.

2013See, e.g., McGee v. State, 953 So.2d 211, 215 (Miss.2007) (explaining that plain error requires reversal if “the error results in a manifest miscarriage of justice”) (citing Williams v. State, 794 So.2d 181, 187-88 (Miss.2001), ovemled on other grounds, Brown v. State, 995 So.2d 698, 703 (Miss.2008)).

2012See, e.g., McGee, 953 So. 2d at 215 (explaining that plain error requires reversal if “the error results in a manifest miscarriage of justice”) (citing Williams v. State, 794 So. 2d 181, 187-88 (Miss. 2001), overruled on other grounds, Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698, 708 (Miss. 2008)).

2013See, e.g., McGee v. State, 953 So.2d 211, 215 (Miss.2007) (explaining that plain error requires reversal if “the error results in a manifest miscarriage of justice”) (citing Williams v. State, 794 So.2d 181, 187-88 (Miss.2001), ovemled on other grounds, Brown v. State, 995 So.2d 698, 703 (Miss.2008)).

2012See, e.g., McGee, 953 So. 2d at 215 (explaining that plain error requires reversal if “the error results in a manifest miscarriage of justice”) (citing Williams v. State, 794 So. 2d 181, 187-88 (Miss. 2001), overruled on other grounds, Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698, 708 (Miss. 2008)).

2010However, this Court has stated that “[a] criminal defendant has a right to assert alternative theories of defense, even inconsistent alternative theories.” Reddix v. State, 731 So.2d 591, 593 (Miss.1999) (citing Love v. State, 441 So.2d 1353, 1356 (Miss.1983)).

2006However, this Court has stated that “[a] criminal defendant has a right to assert alternative theories of defense, even inconsistent alternative theories.” Reddix v. State, 731 So. 2d 591, 593 (Miss. 1999) (citing Love v. State, 441 So. 2d 1353, 1356 (Miss. 1983)).

2010See Hearn, 3 So.3d at 738 . ¶ 22.

2010See Hearn, 3 So.3d at 738 . ¶ 22.

2010“A trial judge is under no obligation to grant redundant instructions.” Montana, 822 So.2d at 961 (¶ 26) (citation omitted). ¶ 28.

2005The trial judge overruled Miller's objection to the instruction reasoning that the instruction contained language identical to the self-defense instruction approved by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Montana v. State, 822 So.2d 954, 959 (¶ 13) (Miss.2002).

2009Croft v. State, 992 So.2d 1151, 1157 (Miss.2008).

2008Croft v. State, 992 So. 2d 1151, 1157 (Miss. 2008).

2001The problem identified in Reddix , is that, while the prosecution-oriented, expansive discussion of self-defense is not in and of itself erroneous, it does not negate the right of the defendant to have given a different self-defense instruction which specifically tells the jury, among other things, to find the defendant not guilty if self-defense is found. 731 So.2d at 595. ¶ 24.

1997The problem identified in Reddix, is that, while the prosecution-oriented, expansive discussion of self-defense is not in and of itself erroneous, it does not negate the right of the defendant to have given a different self-defense instruction which specifically tells the jury, among other things, to find the defendant not guilty if self-defense is found. 731 So. 2d at 595. ¶24.

2023Id. at 162 (¶8).

2013Young, 99 So.3d at 166 .

2004Assuming the self-defense theory was properly presented at trial, entitlement to a self-defense instruction demands bolstering by evidence “from which the jury may conclude that a defendant was justified in having committed the homicide because he was, or had reasonable grounds to believe that he was, in imminent danger of suffering death or great bodily harm at the hands of the person killed.” Id.

1995In Strong v. State, 600 So.2d 199 (Miss. 1992), this Court found that refusing a self-defense instruction was not error where the evidence did not support the giving of such instruction.

2018Lott relies upon Manuel v. State , 667 So.2d 590 (Miss. 1995), to support his claim that his trial counsel erred by failing to request a self-defense instruction indicating that he was afraid of being seriously injured by a larger, though unarmed, victim.

1998See Manuel v. State, 667 So.2d 590, 592 (Miss. 1995) (defendant entitled to instruction on her theory of self-defense that she was justified in using a deadly weapon against a larger, unarmed assailant).

2012Laurent relies on Brown v. State, 39 So.3d 890 (Miss.2010) in support of his argument that the circuit court erred by not giving a self-defense instruction to the jury.

2010Furthermore, the Broum court also held that inconsistent theories of defense can be presented in jury instructions: “a criminal defendant has a right to assert alternative theories of defense, even inconsistent alternative theories.” Id. at 899 (¶34).- In Brown , Brown wanted to present a self-defense instruction and an accidental-shooting instruction.

2010We agree with the Court of Appeals that, “[bjecause the danger to Maye and his child were one and the same, if a self-defense instruction was appropriate, as it was, then likewise a defense of others instruction was also appropriate.” Maye, 49 So.3d at 1149 .

2010We agree with the Court of Appeals that, "[b]ecause the danger to Maye and his child were one and the same, if a self-defense instruction was appropriate, as it was, then likewise a defense of others instruction was also appropriate." Maye, 49 So.3d at 1149.

2025See Banyard v. State, 47 So. 3d 676, 681 (¶12) (Miss. 2010) (“A criminal defendant is entitled 7 to have his jury instructed on all offenses of which an evidentiary basis exists in the record, even where the evidence arises only in the defendant’s own testimony.” (quoting West v. State, 725 So. 2d 872, 888 (Miss. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Wilson v. State, 194 So. 3d 855, 867 (¶41) (Miss. 2016))). ¶15.

2025Baker’s proposed self-defense instruction was rejected because the judge “had not heard any evidence that the jury could consider that either of the defendants were acting in self-defense.” See Willis v. State, 352 So. 3d 602 , 615-17 (¶¶38-40) (Miss. 2022) (finding no abuse of discretion in trial court’s denial of self-defense instruction); Brown v. State, 222 So. 3d 302, 309 (¶34) (Miss. 2017) (holding an “imperfect self-defense instruction was without foundation” and the trial court abused its discretion by giving the instruction); Morgan v. State, 117 So. 3d 619, 623-24 (¶¶14-18) (Miss. 20