party requesting instruction in Mississippi

2008In Ellis v. State, 790 So.2d 813, 815-16 (¶ 6) (Miss.2001) (quoting Hill v. Dunaway, 487 So.2d 807, 809 (Miss.1986)), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that: The refusal of a timely requested and correctly phrased jury instruction on a genuine issue of material fact is proper, only if the trial court-and this Court on appeal-can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the requesting party, that no hypothetical, reasonable jury could find th

2004The standard of review for considering the grant or denial of jury instructions are set forth in Hill v. Dunaway, 487 So.2d 807, 809 (Miss. 1986): By analogy to our familiar test as to when any fact question may be taken from the jury, our rule is this: The refusal of a timely requested and correctly phrased jury instruction on a genuine issue of material fact is proper, only if the trial court—and this Court on appeal—can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn from the

1997Cf. Lee v. State, 469 So.2d 1225, 1230-31 (Miss. 1985); Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d 793, 801 (Miss. 1984).

1995Lee v. State, 469 So.2d 1225, 1230-32 (Miss. 1985); Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d 793, 801 (Miss. 1984).

1997Cf. Lee v. State, 469 So.2d 1225, 1230-31 (Miss. 1985); Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d 793, 801 (Miss. 1984).

1995Lee v. State, 469 So.2d 1225, 1230-32 (Miss. 1985); Fairchild v. State, 459 So.2d 793, 801 (Miss. 1984).

2003The standard for determining the propriety of refusing a tendered instruction was reiterated in Ferrill v. State, 643 So.2d 501, 505 (Miss.1994): The refusal of a timely requested and correctly phrased jury instruction on a genuine issue of material fact is proper, only if the trial court—and this Court on appeal—can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the requesting party, that no hypothetical, reasonable jury could find the facts in ac

2001The standard for determining the propriety of refusing a tendered instruction was reiterated in Ferrill v. State, 643 So. 2d 501, 505 (Miss. 1994): The refusal of a timely requested and correctly phrased jury instruction on a genuine issue of material fact is proper, only if the trial court--and this Court on appeal--can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the requesting party, that no hypothetical, reasonable jury could find the facts i

2003The standard for determining the propriety of refusing a tendered instruction was reiterated in Ferrill v. State, 643 So.2d 501, 505 (Miss.1994): The refusal of a timely requested and correctly phrased jury instruction on a genuine issue of material fact is proper, only if the trial court—and this Court on appeal—can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the requesting party, that no hypothetical, reasonable jury could find the facts in ac

2001The standard for determining the propriety of refusing a tendered instruction was reiterated in Ferrill v. State, 643 So. 2d 501, 505 (Miss. 1994): The refusal of a timely requested and correctly phrased jury instruction on a genuine issue of material fact is proper, only if the trial court--and this Court on appeal--can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the requesting party, that no hypothetical, reasonable jury could find the facts i

2006Splain v. Hines, 609 So.2d 1234, 1239 (Miss.1992).

2005Splain v. Hines, 609 So.2d 1234, 1239 (Miss.1992).

1994(Citations omitted.) As for the issue of whether the trial court erred when it refused to grant an instruction which a party requested, the Mississippi Supreme Court in Willard v. Paracelsus Health Care Corp., 681 So.2d 539, 543 (Miss. 1996) established the following standard of review: [O]ur rule is this: [t]he refusal of a timely requested and correctly phrased jury instruction on a genuine issue of material fact is proper only if the trial court -- and this Court on appeal -- can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, and considering al

1994(Citations omitted.) As for the issue of whether the trial court erred when it refused to grant an instruction which a party requested, the Mississippi Supreme Court in Willard v. Paracelsus Health Care Corp., 681 So.2d 539, 543 (Miss. 1996) established the following standard of review: [O]ur rule is this: [t]he refusal of a timely requested and correctly phrased jury instruction on a genuine issue of material fact is proper only if the trial court -- and this Court on appeal -- can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, and considering al

2008In order to decide on "whether there is sufficient evidence that an issue be submitted to the jury, we must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction[.]" Jackson v. State, *866 551 So.2d 132, 146 (Miss.1989).

2008In order to decide on “whether there is sufficient evidence that an issue be submitted to the jury, we must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction^]” Jackson v. State, 551 So.2d 132, 146 (Miss.1989).

2007App.2005) (citing Walls v. State 672 So.2d 1227, 1230 (Miss.1996)). ¶ 6.

1995The proper standard of review for an appellate court in cases such as this is set out in the recent case of Walls v. State, 672 So. 2d 1227, 1230 (Miss. 1996): [W]hether an issue should be submitted to the jury is determined by whether there is evidence which, if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction.

2005John, 856 So.2d 304, 311 (¶ 17) (Miss.2003) (citing Church v. Massey, 697 So.2d 407, 410 (Miss.1997); Hill v. Dunaway, 487 So.2d 807, 809 (Miss.1986)).

2003Church v. Massey, 697 So.2d 407, 410-11 (Miss.1997).

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)).

2016King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss.1988), “Whether the entrapment” defense — or any other issue of fact — should be submitted to the jury ultimately turns on whether there' is in the record credible evidence supporting it.” Id. at 1359 , Stated another way, an entrapment instruction must be given where the defendant presents such evidence which, “if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction.” Phillips, 493 So.2d at 353 . ¶ 18, “[A] defendant is not entrapped and ■ enjoys no protection from prosecution when he is alread

2016King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss.1988), “Whether the entrapment” defense — or any other issue of fact — should be submitted to the jury ultimately turns on whether there' is in the record credible evidence supporting it.” Id. at 1359 , Stated another way, an entrapment instruction must be given where the defendant presents such evidence which, “if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction.” Phillips, 493 So.2d at 353 . ¶ 18, “[A] defendant is not entrapped and ■ enjoys no protection from prosecution when he is alread

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)).

2001That party must also be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” Jones v. State, 798 So.2d 1241, 1254 (Miss. 2001) (quoting Jackson v. State, 551 So.2d 132, 146 (Miss. 1989)). ¶15.

2016King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss.1988), “Whether the entrapment” defense — or any other issue of fact — should be submitted to the jury ultimately turns on whether there' is in the record credible evidence supporting it.” Id. at 1359 , Stated another way, an entrapment instruction must be given where the defendant presents such evidence which, “if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction.” Phillips, 493 So.2d at 353 . ¶ 18, “[A] defendant is not entrapped and ■ enjoys no protection from prosecution when he is alread

2000Conversely, only where the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable juror could find for the requesting party on the issue at hand may the trial court deny an instruction on a material issue.” Phillips v. State, 493 So.2d 350, 353-54 (Miss.1986). “[Wjhether the entrapment defense should be submitted to the jury depends upon whether there is credible evidence in the record supporting such a defense.” Avery v. State, 548 So.2d 385, 387 (Miss.1989) (quoting King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1359-60 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 16.

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.

2019Taylor v. State, 577 So. 2d 381, 383 (¶6) (Miss. 1991).

2016King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss.1988), “Whether the entrapment” defense — or any other issue of fact — should be submitted to the jury ultimately turns on whether there' is in the record credible evidence supporting it.” Id. at 1359 , Stated another way, an entrapment instruction must be given where the defendant presents such evidence which, “if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction.” Phillips, 493 So.2d at 353 . ¶ 18, “[A] defendant is not entrapped and ■ enjoys no protection from prosecution when he is alread

2009The appellate court evaluates “the evidence from the view of the party requesting the instruction.” Brown, 768 So.2d at 315 (¶ 9). “[T]he various requested instructions are not considered in isolation[;] [r]ather, the instructions actually given must be read as a whole.” Sheffield v. State, 844 So.2d 519, 524 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (citing Turner v. State, 721 So.2d 642, 648 (¶ 21) (Miss.1998)).

2009The appellate court evaluates “the evidence from the view of the party requesting the instruction.” Brown, 768 So.2d at 315 (¶ 9). “[T]he various requested instructions are not considered in isolation[;] [r]ather, the instructions actually given must be read as a whole.” Sheffield v. State, 844 So.2d 519, 524 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (citing Turner v. State, 721 So.2d 642, 648 (¶ 21) (Miss.1998)).

2009The appellate court evaluates “the evidence from the view of the party requesting the instruction.” Brown, 768 So.2d at 315 (¶ 9). “[T]he various requested instructions are not considered in isolation[;] [r]ather, the instructions actually given must be read as a whole.” Sheffield v. State, 844 So.2d 519, 524 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (citing Turner v. State, 721 So.2d 642, 648 (¶ 21) (Miss.1998)).

2009“When [read together], if the instructions fairly announce the law of the ease and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found.” Johnson v. State, 908 So.2d 758, 764 (¶ 20) (Miss.2005). ¶ 4.

2008In Ellis v. State, 790 So.2d 813, 815-16 (¶ 6) (Miss.2001) (quoting Hill v. Dunaway, 487 So.2d 807, 809 (Miss.1986)), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that: The refusal of a timely requested and correctly phrased jury instruction on a genuine issue of material fact is proper, only if the trial court-and this Court on appeal-can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the requesting party, that no hypothetical, reasonable jury could find th

2007Finally, in determining which instructions or issues to be presented to the jury, the court must decide "whether there is evidence which, if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction." Gill v. State, 924 So.2d 554, 556 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.

2005John, 856 So.2d 304, 311 (¶ 17) (Miss.2003) (citing Church v. Massey, 697 So.2d 407, 410 (Miss.1997); Hill v. Dunaway, 487 So.2d 807, 809 (Miss.1986)).

2002DeLaughter v. Lawrence County Hosp., 601 So.2d 818, 824 (Miss.1992).

2000The fact that an opportunity is furnished constitutes no defense.” McLemore v. State, 241 Miss. 664, 675 , 125 So.2d 86, 91 (1960). ¶ 15. “[Wjhether [the] issue [of entrapment] should be submitted to the jury is determined by whether there is evidence which, if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction.

2000The fact that an opportunity is furnished constitutes no defense.” McLemore v. State, 241 Miss. 664, 675 , 125 So.2d 86, 91 (1960). ¶ 15. “[Wjhether [the] issue [of entrapment] should be submitted to the jury is determined by whether there is evidence which, if believed by the jury, could result in resolution of the issue in favor of the party requesting the instruction.

2000Conversely, only where the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable juror could find for the requesting party on the issue at hand may the trial court deny an instruction on a material issue.” Phillips v. State, 493 So.2d 350, 353-54 (Miss.1986). “[Wjhether the entrapment defense should be submitted to the jury depends upon whether there is credible evidence in the record supporting such a defense.” Avery v. State, 548 So.2d 385, 387 (Miss.1989) (quoting King v. State, 530 So.2d 1356, 1359-60 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 16.

1992Hill v. Dunaway, 487 So.2d 807, 809 (Miss. 1986); see also, Stewart v. Davis, 571 So.2d 926, 929 (Miss. 1990); Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So.2d 970, 972 (Miss. 1989).

1992Hill v. Dunaway, 487 So.2d 807, 809 (Miss. 1986); see also, Stewart v. Davis, 571 So.2d 926, 929 (Miss. 1990); Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So.2d 970, 972 (Miss. 1989).