proposed jury instruction in Mississippi

2007Reynolds Tobacco Co., 869 So.2d 373, 378 (Miss.2004) (citing Haggerty v. Foster, 838 So.2d 948, 954 (Miss.2002)). *631 ¶ 88.

2006Haggerty v. Foster, 838 So.2d 948, 954 (¶ 8) (Miss.2002).

2026Victory v. State, 83 So. 3d 370, 373 (Miss. 2012) (citing Newell v. State, 49 So. 3d 66, 73 (Miss. 2010)).

2022Willis contends that because the record supports his theory of self-defense, the trial court abused its discretion by denying his self-defense jury instruction.11 “We review the denial or acceptance of a proposed jury instruction for abuse of discretion.” Gilmore v. State, 11 The State claims that Willis waived his request for a self-defense jury instruction because at the jury instruction conference, “Willis’s counsel took the position that the evidence supported only a first-degree murder instruction and an accident instruction—nothing more.” But this Court has held that “[a] criminal defend

1998This Court has stated that in order "`[t]o be entitled to a jury instruction, the proponent must show that the proposed jury instruction is supported by the evidence and the instruction is the correct statement of the law.'" West v. Sanders Clinic for Women, P.A., 661 So.2d 714 , 721 (Miss.1995) (quoting Turner v. Temple, 602 So.2d 817, 823 (Miss.1992); Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So.2d 970, 973 (Miss. 1989)). ¶ 41.

1995Sanders.” “To be entitled to a jury instruction, the proponent must show that the proposed jury instruction is supported by the evidence and the instruction is the correct statement of the law.” Turner v. Temple, 602 So.2d 817, 823 (Miss.1992); Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So.2d 970, 973 (Miss. 1989).

2023“On appellate review of the trial court’s grant or denial of a proposed jury instruction, our primary concern is that ‘the jury was fairly instructed and that each party’s proof-grounded theory of the case was placed before it.’” Banyard v. State, 47 So. 3d 676, 681 (¶11) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Young v. Guild, 7 So. 3d 251, 259 (¶24) (Miss. 2009)). ¶23.

2021See Young v. Guild, 7 So. 3d 251, 259 (Miss. 2009) (“On appellate review of the trial court’s grant or denial of a proposed jury instruction, our primary concern is that ‘the jury was fairly instructed and that each party’s proof-grounded theory of the case was placed before it.’” (quoting Splain v. Hines, 609 So. 2d 1234, 1239 (Miss. 1992))); see also Haynes, 250 So. 3d at 1245 (“Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances.” (quoting Hudson, 30 So. 3d at 1203 )).

2026Victory v. State, 83 So. 3d 370, 373 (Miss. 2012) (citing Newell v. State, 49 So. 3d 66, 73 (Miss. 2010)).

2025Victory v. State, 83 So. 3d 370, 373 (Miss. 2012) (citing Newell v. State, 49 So. 3d 66, 73 (Miss. 2010)).

2011This Court has stated that: [Regarding jury instructions, the trial court possesses considerable discretion. [[Image here]] On appellate review of the trial court’s grant or denial of a proposed jury instruction, our primary concern is that “the jury was fairly instructed and that each party’s proof-grounded theory of the case was placed before it.” [Splain v. Hines, 609 So.2d 1234, 1239 (Miss. 1992) ] (citing Rester v. Lott, 566 So.2d 1266, 1269 (Miss.1990)).

2009On appellate review of the trial court’s grant or denial of a proposed jury instruction, our primary concern is that “the jury was fairly instructed and that each party’s proof-grounded theory of the case was placed before it.” Splain, 609 So.2d at 1239 (citing Rester v. Lott, 566 So.2d 1266, 1269 (Miss.1990)).

1998This Court has stated that in order "`[t]o be entitled to a jury instruction, the proponent must show that the proposed jury instruction is supported by the evidence and the instruction is the correct statement of the law.'" West v. Sanders Clinic for Women, P.A., 661 So.2d 714 , 721 (Miss.1995) (quoting Turner v. Temple, 602 So.2d 817, 823 (Miss.1992); Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So.2d 970, 973 (Miss. 1989)). ¶ 41.

1995Sanders.” “To be entitled to a jury instruction, the proponent must show that the proposed jury instruction is supported by the evidence and the instruction is the correct statement of the law.” Turner v. Temple, 602 So.2d 817, 823 (Miss.1992); Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So.2d 970, 973 (Miss. 1989).

2021See Young v. Guild, 7 So. 3d 251, 259 (Miss. 2009) (“On appellate review of the trial court’s grant or denial of a proposed jury instruction, our primary concern is that ‘the jury was fairly instructed and that each party’s proof-grounded theory of the case was placed before it.’” (quoting Splain v. Hines, 609 So. 2d 1234, 1239 (Miss. 1992))); see also Haynes, 250 So. 3d at 1245 (“Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances.” (quoting Hudson, 30 So. 3d at 1203 )).

2011This Court has stated that: [Regarding jury instructions, the trial court possesses considerable discretion. [[Image here]] On appellate review of the trial court’s grant or denial of a proposed jury instruction, our primary concern is that “the jury was fairly instructed and that each party’s proof-grounded theory of the case was placed before it.” [Splain v. Hines, 609 So.2d 1234, 1239 (Miss. 1992) ] (citing Rester v. Lott, 566 So.2d 1266, 1269 (Miss.1990)).

2022Willis contends that because the record supports his theory of self-defense, the trial court abused its discretion by denying his self-defense jury instruction.11 “We review the denial or acceptance of a proposed jury instruction for abuse of discretion.” Gilmore v. State, 11 The State claims that Willis waived his request for a self-defense jury instruction because at the jury instruction conference, “Willis’s counsel took the position that the evidence supported only a first-degree murder instruction and an accident instruction—nothing more.” But this Court has held that “[a] criminal defend

2022Willis contends that because the record supports his theory of self-defense, the trial court abused its discretion by denying his self-defense jury instruction.11 “We review the denial or acceptance of a proposed jury instruction for abuse of discretion.” Gilmore v. State, 11 The State claims that Willis waived his request for a self-defense jury instruction because at the jury instruction conference, “Willis’s counsel took the position that the evidence supported only a first-degree murder instruction and an accident instruction—nothing more.” But this Court has held that “[a] criminal defend

2013Reynolds Tobacco Co., 869 So.2d 373, 378 (¶ 7) (Miss.2004) (citation omitted).

2007Reynolds Tobacco Co., 869 So.2d 373, 378 (Miss.2004) (citing Haggerty v. Foster, 838 So.2d 948, 954 (Miss.2002)). *631 ¶ 88.

1999Tran v. State, 681 So.2d 514, 518 (Miss. 1996); Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss.1988). ¶ 17.

1996See Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss. 1988) (citations omitted).

2025The Court’s longstanding principle when reviewing a trial judge’s decision to grant or deny a proposed jury instruction is that if the instructions, when read together, (1) “fairly announce the law of the case” and (2) “create no injustice,” then “no reversible error will be found.” Stewart v. State, 378 So. 3d 379 , 388 (Miss. 2024) (emphasis added) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Montgomery v. State, 253 So. 3d 305, 316 (Miss. 2018)); see also Rayburn v. State, 312 So. 2d 454, 456 (Miss. 1975).

2025Stewart v. State, 378 So. 3d 379 , 388 (Miss. 2024) (quoting Montgomery v. State, 253 So. 3d 305, 316 (Miss. 2018)); see also Rayburn v. State, 312 So. 2d 454, 456 (Miss. 1975).

2025The Court’s longstanding principle when reviewing a trial judge’s decision to grant or deny a proposed jury instruction is that if the instructions, when read together, (1) “fairly announce the law of the case” and (2) “create no injustice,” then “no reversible error will be found.” Stewart v. State, 378 So. 3d 379 , 388 (Miss. 2024) (emphasis added) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Montgomery v. State, 253 So. 3d 305, 316 (Miss. 2018)); see also Rayburn v. State, 312 So. 2d 454, 456 (Miss. 1975).

2025Stewart v. State, 378 So. 3d 379 , 388 (Miss. 2024) (quoting Montgomery v. State, 253 So. 3d 305, 316 (Miss. 2018)); see also Rayburn v. State, 312 So. 2d 454, 456 (Miss. 1975).

2025Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Booze v. State, 964 So. 2d 1218, 1221 (¶14) (Miss. 2007)). ¶10.

2011That party must also be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” Booze v. State, 964 So.2d 1218, 1221 (¶ 14) (Miss.2007) (quoting Jones v. State, 798 So.2d 1241, 1254 (¶ 40) (Miss.2001)).

2023“On appellate review of the trial court’s grant or denial of a proposed jury instruction, our primary concern is that ‘the jury was fairly instructed and that each party’s proof-grounded theory of the case was placed before it.’” Banyard v. State, 47 So. 3d 676, 681 (¶11) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Young v. Guild, 7 So. 3d 251, 259 (¶24) (Miss. 2009)). ¶23.

2015“On appellate review of the trial court’s grant or denial of a proposed jury instruction, our primary concern is that ‘the jury was fairly instructed and that each party’s proof-grounded theory of the case was placed before it.’ ” Banyard v. State, 47 So.3d 676, 681 (Miss.2010) (quoting Young v. Guild, 7 So.3d 251, 259 (Miss.2009)). ¶ 73.

2023Quinn v. State, 191 So. 3d 1227, 1233-32 (Miss. 2016) (citing Victory v. State, 83 So. 3d 370, 373 (Miss. 2012)).

2017Quinn v. State, 191 So.3d 1227, 1231-32 (¶ 18) (Miss. 2016).

2016Mitchell, 96 So.3d at 775 (¶ 9).

2015Mitchell, 96 So. 3d at 775 (¶9).

1999Munford Inc., v. Fleming, 597 So.2d 1282, 1286 (Miss. 1992).

1996Munford Inc., v. Fleming, 597 So. 2d 1282, 1286 (Miss. 1992).

2012“However, a trial judge may refuse a proposed jury instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law, repeats a theory covered in other instructions, or has no proper foundation in the evidence before the court.” Utz, 32 So.3d at 474 (¶ 78) (citation omitted). ¶ 31.

2012“Only where the evidence could only justify a conviction of the principal charge should a lesser offense instruction be refused.” Ford v. State, 975 So.2d 859, 864 (Miss.2008) (citing Mease v. State, 539 So.2d 1324, 1330 (Miss.1989) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted)). “[A] trial judge may refuse a proposed jury instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law, repeats a theory covered in other instructions, or has no proper foundation in the evidence before the court.” Utz, 32 So.3d at 474 , (citing Investor Res.

2012Services, Inc. v. Cato, 15 So.3d 412, 423 (Miss.2009)). ¶ 35.

2010Cato, 15 So.3d at 423 .

1998This Court has stated that in order "`[t]o be entitled to a jury instruction, the proponent must show that the proposed jury instruction is supported by the evidence and the instruction is the correct statement of the law.'" West v. Sanders Clinic for Women, P.A., 661 So.2d 714 , 721 (Miss.1995) (quoting Turner v. Temple, 602 So.2d 817, 823 (Miss.1992); Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So.2d 970, 973 (Miss. 1989)). ¶ 41.

1995This Court has stated that in order "'[t]o be entitled to a jury instruction, the proponent must show that the proposed jury instruction is supported by the evidence and the instruction is the correct statement of the law.'" West v. Sanders Clinic for Women, P.A., 661 So. 2d 714, 721 (Miss. 1995) (quoting Turner v. Temple, 602 So. 2d 817, 823 (Miss. 1992); Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So. 2d 970, 973 (Miss. 1989)). ¶41.

2025Moreover, “this Court has held that instructions which emphasize any particular part of the testimony in such a manner as to amount to a comment on the weight of that evidence are improper.” Sanders v. State, 586 So. 2d 792, 796 (Miss. 1991) (emphasis added) (citing Duckworth v. State, 477 So. 2d 935, 938 (Miss. 1985)).

2025Moreover, “this Court has held that instructions which emphasize any particular part of the testimony in such a manner as to amount to a comment on the weight of that evidence are improper.” Sanders v. State, 586 So. 2d 792, 796 (Miss. 1991) (emphasis added) (citing Duckworth v. State, 477 So. 2d 935, 938 (Miss. 1985)).

2025In determining whether a proposed jury instruction is supported by the evidence, the trial court must give the party requesting the instruction “the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” Buchanan v. State, 84 So. 3d 812, 815 (¶8) (Miss.

2023On review of a challenge to the weight of the evidence, this Court “view[s] the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, and the verdict will be disturbed only when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bowser v. State, 182 So. 3d 425, 431 (¶15) (Miss. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023Whether the trial court erred by refusing the defense’s proposed jury instruction on impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement. ¶24. “[A] trial judge is not under an obligation to grant redundant instructions.” Jones v. State, 203 So. 3d 600, 613-14 (¶43) (Miss. 2016) (citing Swann v. State, 806 So. 2d 1111, 1117 (¶23) (Miss. 2002)).

2023Whether the trial court erred by refusing the defense’s proposed jury instruction on impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement. ¶24. “[A] trial judge is not under an obligation to grant redundant instructions.” Jones v. State, 203 So. 3d 600, 613-14 (¶43) (Miss. 2016) (citing Swann v. State, 806 So. 2d 1111, 1117 (¶23) (Miss. 2002)).

2022This Court has said “Self-defense is codified at Mississippi Code Section 97-3-15(f), which provides that the killing of a human being is justified ‘[w]hen committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design[’s] being accomplished.’” Nelson v. State, 284 So. 3d 711 , 716 (Miss. 2019) (first alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. State, 222 So. 3d 302, 307 (Miss. 2017)). “[T]he actor’s apprehension mus

2022This Court has said “Self-defense is codified at Mississippi Code Section 97-3-15(f), which provides that the killing of a human being is justified ‘[w]hen committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design[’s] being accomplished.’” Nelson v. State, 284 So. 3d 711 , 716 (Miss. 2019) (first alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. State, 222 So. 3d 302, 307 (Miss. 2017)). “[T]he actor’s apprehension mus

2022“Traditionally, trial counsel’s decision regarding whether to request certain jury instructions is considered trial strategy.” Taylor v. State, 109 So. 3d 589, 596 (¶27) (Miss.