may refuse instruction in Mississippi

2023“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Heidel v. State, 587 So. 2d 835, 842 (Miss. 1991).

2014“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which *1021 incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Byrom v. State, 863 So.2d 836, 874 (¶ 129) (Miss.2003) (quoting Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991)).

2020“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law . . . or is without foundation in the evidence.” Howell v. State, 860 So. 2d 704, 745 (¶142) (Miss. 2003) (quoting Humphrey v. State, 759 So. 2d 368, 380 (¶33) (Miss. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Miss.

2006"A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence." Humphrey v. State, 759 So.2d 368, 380 (¶ 33) (Miss.2000) (quoting Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991)). ¶ 33.

2026“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Id. at 74 (¶ 20) (quoting Hearn v. State, 3 So. 3d 722, 738 (¶45) (Miss. 2008)). “[I]f the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found.” Id. at 73 (¶20) (quoting Rubenstein v. State, 941 So. 2d 735, 785 (¶224) (Miss. 2006)). ¶26.

2025The “defendant is entitled to have jury instructions which present his theory of the case,” but “the court may refuse an instruction [that] incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Id. at 74 (¶20) (quoting Hearn v. State, 3 So. 3d 722, 738 (¶45) (Miss. 2008)).

2014Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 192 (Miss.2001) (quoting Humphrey v. State, 759 So.2d 368, 380 (Miss.2000) (overruled on other grounds)).

2014Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 192 (Miss.2001) (citations omitted). ¶ 50.

2024“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his 6 theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Hearn v. State, 3 So. 3d 722, 738 (Miss. 2008) (quoting Chandler v. State, 946 So. 2d 355, 360 (Miss. 2006)). ¶19.

2018"A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence." Chandler v. State , 946 So.2d 355 , 360 (¶ 21) (Miss. 2006).

2026This Court has stated that “[a] defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Victory v. State, 83 So. 3d 370, 373 (Miss. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Newell v. State, 49 So. 3d 66, 73 (Miss. 2010)).

2026“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Id. at 74 (¶ 20) (quoting Hearn v. State, 3 So. 3d 722, 738 (¶45) (Miss. 2008)). “[I]f the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found.” Id. at 73 (¶20) (quoting Rubenstein v. State, 941 So. 2d 735, 785 (¶224) (Miss. 2006)). ¶26.

2011“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case[;] however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Poole v. State, 826 So.2d 1222, 1230 (¶ 27) (Miss. 2002) (quoting Smith v. State, 802 So.2d 82, 88 (¶ 20) (Miss.2001)).

2010“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case[;] however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Poole v. State, 826 So.2d 1222, 1230 (¶ 27) (Miss.2002) (quoting Smith v. State, 802 So.2d 82, 88 (¶ 20) (Miss.2001)). ¶ 29.

2007"A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case . . . the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without *220 foundation in the evidence." Ladnier v. State, 878 So.2d 926, 931-32 (¶ 19) (Miss. 2004) (citing Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991)).

2007“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Chandler v. State, 946 So.2d 355, 360 (¶ 21) (Miss.2006) (quoting Ladnier v. State, 878 So.2d 926, 931 (¶ 20) (Miss.2004)).

2011“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case[;] however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Poole v. State, 826 So.2d 1222, 1230 (¶ 27) (Miss. 2002) (quoting Smith v. State, 802 So.2d 82, 88 (¶ 20) (Miss.2001)).

2010“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case[;] however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Poole v. State, 826 So.2d 1222, 1230 (¶ 27) (Miss.2002) (quoting Smith v. State, 802 So.2d 82, 88 (¶ 20) (Miss.2001)). ¶ 29.

2020It is well established that “[a] defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Ronk v. State, 172 So. 3d 1112, 1125 (¶20) (Miss. 2015) (quoting Agnew v. State, 783 So. 2d 699, 702 (¶6) (Miss. 2001)). 1 Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-9-59 (Rev. 2014) provides the following definition of perjury: Every person who shall wilfully and corruptl

2018"A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case[;] however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence." Agnew v. State , 783 So.2d 699 , 702 (Miss. 2001) (citations omitted).

2001Jackson v. State, 645 So.2d 921, 924 (Miss.1994)(internal citations omitted).

2000Jackson v. State, 645 So.2d 921, 924 (Miss. 1994) (citing Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991) (citations omitted)).

2023Although “[a] defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, . . . this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Chinn, 958 So. 2d at 1225 (¶12) (quoting Howell v. State, 860 So. 2d 704, 745 (¶142) (Miss. 2003)).

2020“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law . . . or is without foundation in the evidence.” Howell v. State, 860 So. 2d 704, 745 (¶142) (Miss. 2003) (quoting Humphrey v. State, 759 So. 2d 368, 380 (¶33) (Miss. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Miss.

2023Mississippi’s appellate courts “will not find reversible error where the instructions actually given, when read together as a whole, fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice.” Adkins v. Sanders, 871 So. 2d 732, 736 (¶9) (Miss. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶35.

2007"A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence." Howell v. State, 860 So.2d 704, 745 (Miss.2003) (citing Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991)) (emphasis added); see Adkins, 871 So.2d at 740 ("There is insufficient evidence to support this instruction.

2014“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which *1021 incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Byrom v. State, 863 So.2d 836, 874 (¶ 129) (Miss.2003) (quoting Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991)).

2006"A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence." Byrom v. State, 863 So.2d 836, 874 (¶ 129) (Miss. 2003) (quoting Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991)).

2024“The court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions[ ] or is without foundation in the evidence.” Phillipson v. State, 943 So. 2d 670, 671 (Miss. 2006).

2015See Phillipson v. State, 943 So.2d 670, 671 (¶ 6) (Miss.2006) (“The court may refuse an instruction [that] ... is without foundation in the evidence.”). ¶ 36.

2026This Court has stated that “[a] defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Victory v. State, 83 So. 3d 370, 373 (Miss. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Newell v. State, 49 So. 3d 66, 73 (Miss. 2010)).

2023But “the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Valentine v. 7 State, 322 So. 3d 417 , 423 (Miss. 2021) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Victory, 83 So. 3d at 373 ). ¶22.

2015Moreover, “a defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Id. (quoting Hearn v. State, 3 So.3d 722, 738 (¶ 45) (Miss.2008)). “[I]f the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found.” Williams v. State, 803 So.2d 1159, 1161 (¶ 7) (Miss. 2001). 1.

2015Further, “a defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Id. (quoting Hearn v. State, 3 So.3d 722, 738 (¶ 45) (Miss.2008)). “[I]f the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found.” Williams v. State, 803 So.2d 1159, 1161 (¶ 7) (Miss.2001). ¶ 35.

2026“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Id. at 74 (¶ 20) (quoting Hearn v. State, 3 So. 3d 722, 738 (¶45) (Miss. 2008)). “[I]f the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found.” Id. at 73 (¶20) (quoting Rubenstein v. State, 941 So. 2d 735, 785 (¶224) (Miss. 2006)). ¶26.

2023“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present [her] theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Victory v. State, 83 So. 3d 370, 373 (Miss. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Newell v. State, 49 So. 3d 66, 74 (Miss. 2010)). “[I]f the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found.” Id. (alteration in original) (int

2024Although “[a] defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case . . . this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which [1] incorrectly states the law, [2] is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or [3] is without foundation in the evidence.” Clayton v. State, 106 So. 3d 802, 804 (¶6) (Miss. 2012) (emphasis added) (citing Bailey v. State, 78 So. 3d 308, 315 (Miss. 2012)). ¶23.

2022Although “a defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given [that] present his theory of the case; . . . this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction [that] incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted). ¶27.

2003In the case of Heidel v. State , 587 So.2d 835 , 842 (Miss. 1991), the court stated: A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, Murphy v. State , 566 So.2d 1201 , 1206 (Miss. 1990); Young v. State , 451 So.2d 208 , 210 (Miss. 1984); however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.

2000A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, Murphy, 566 So.2d at 1206 ; Young v. State, 451 So.2d 208, 210 (Miss. 1984); however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.

2011Our supreme court has stated that “[a] defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Clark v. State, 40 So.3d 531, 544 (¶ 36) (Miss.2010) (emphasis added) (quoting Spires v. State, 10 So.3d 477, 483 (¶ 28) (Miss.2009)).

2010“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the ease; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Spires v. State, 10 So.3d 477, 483 (Miss.2009) (quoting Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 842 (Miss.1991)). ¶ 37.

2010See also Brooks v. State, 18 So.3d 833, 839 (Miss.2009).

2010See also Brooks v. State, 18 So.3d 833, 839 (Miss.2009). ¶ 8.

2008“A trial court is not required to give instructions which are covered by other instructions although the language may differ.” Davis v. State, 431 So. 2d 468, 475 (Miss. 1983) (citation omitted). 11 ¶29.

1997Murphy, 566 So.2d at 1206; United States v. Robinson, 700 F.2d 205, 211 (5th Cir.1983), appeal after remand, 713 F.2d 110 (1984); Davis v. State, 431 So.2d 468, 475 (Miss.1983)(A trial court is not required to give instructions which are covered by other instructions although the language may differ.)." This issue is without merit.

2007"We will not find reversible error `where the instructions actually given, when read together as a whole,' fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice.'" Adkins v. Sanders, 871 So.2d 732, 736 (Miss.2004) (quoting Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 782 (Miss.1997)). ¶ 18.

2007"We will not find reversible error `where the instructions actually given, when read together as a whole, fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice.'" Adkins v. Sanders, 871 So.2d 732, 736 (Miss.2004) (quoting Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 782 (Miss.1997)). ¶ 13.

2000Murphy, 566 So.2d at 1206 ; United States v. Robinson, 700 F.2d 205, 211 (5th Cir.1983), appeal after remand, 713 F.2d 110 (1983).

1997Murphy, 566 So.2d at 1206; United States v. Robinson, 700 F.2d 205, 211 (5th Cir.1983), appeal after remand, 713 F.2d 110 (1984); Davis v. State, 431 So.2d 468, 475 (Miss.1983)(A trial court is not required to give instructions which are covered by other instructions although the language may differ.)." This issue is without merit.

2024“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which . . . is fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Lee v. State, 858 So. 2d 124, 128 (Miss. 2003) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Higgins v. State, 725 So. 2d 220, 223 (Miss. 1998)). ¶49.

2009“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case.” Id. at (¶ 16). “[H]owever, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Id.

2006"A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence." Adams, 772 So.2d at 1016 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

2005“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case, however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Adams, 772 So. 2d at 1016 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

2022“The court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Harris v. State, 861 So. 2d 1003, 1012-13 (¶18) (Miss. 2003)).

2005The court may refuse an instruction which "incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence." Id. at 1013 .