theories defense in Mississippi

2025“In homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuse that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely.” Evans v. State, 797 So. 2d 811, 815 (¶11) (Miss. 2000) (quoting Manuel v. State, 667 So. 2d 590, 593 (Miss. 1995)).

2024It is axiomatic that “[i]n homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuses that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely, and the trial court’s failure to do so is error requiring reversal of a judgment of conviction.” Manuel v. State, 667 So. 2d 590, 593 (Miss. 1995).

2025“In homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuse that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely.” Evans v. State, 797 So. 2d 811, 815 (¶11) (Miss. 2000) (quoting Manuel v. State, 667 So. 2d 590, 593 (Miss. 1995)).

2024“In homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuse that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely.” Evans v. State, 797 So. 2d 811, 815 (¶11) (Miss. 2000). ¶86.

2026This Court has repeatedly held that “[i]n homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuse that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely.” Nelson v. State, 284 So. 3d 711 , 718 (Miss. 2019) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. State, 39 So. 3d 890, 899 (Miss. 2010)).

2023“In homicide cases,” as here, “the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuse that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely.” Brown v. State, 39 So. 3d 890, 899 (¶34) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Evans v. State, 797 So. 2d 811, 815 (¶11) (Miss. 2000)). ¶34.

2022This discretion is not unfettered, as “in homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuses that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely, and the trial court’s failure to do so is error requiring reversal of a 8 judgment of conviction.” Id. at 806 (¶10) (alteration omitted) (emphasis in original). ¶34.

2020For “in homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuses that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely, and the trial court’s failure to do so is error requiring reversal of a judgment of conviction.” Clayton v. State, 106 So. 3d 802, 806 (¶10) (Miss. 2012). ¶95.

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)).

2018Our courts “greatly value the right of a defendant to present his theory of the case and where the defendant’s proffered instruction has an evidentiary basis, properly states the law, and is the only instruction presenting his theory of the case, refusal to grant it constitutes reversible error.” Chinn, 958 So. 2d at 1225 (¶13). ¶19.

2023“A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case[,] . . . and in homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuse that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely.” Ronk v. State, 172 So. 3d 1112, 1125 (¶20) (Miss. 2015).

2018Ronk , 172 So.3d at 1125 (¶ 20). ¶ 237.

2009In a recent case, this Court stated that it does not “accept the proposition that, simply because the plaintiffs accepted the settlement funds, that they waived any right to sue for malpractice.” Channel v. Loyacono, 954 So.2d 415, 426 (Miss.2007). 10 Clients maintain their right to sue for malpractice even after accepting settlement funds.

2009In a recent case, this Court stated that it does not "accept the proposition that, simply because the plaintiffs accepted the settlement funds, that they waived any right to sue for malpractice." Channel v. Loyacono, 954 So.2d 415, 426 (Miss.2007). [10] Clients maintain their right to sue for malpractice even after accepting settlement funds.

2000See Ragin v. State, 724 So.2d 901, 906 (Miss.1998).

1998See Ragin v. State, 724 So. 2d 901, 906 (Miss. 1998).

2000"In homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant's theories of defense, justification, or excuse that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely, and the trial court's failure to do so is error requiring reversal of a judgment of conviction." Manuel v. State, 667 So.2d 590, 593 (Miss.1995) (citing Hester v. State, 602 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss.1992)).

1995Hester, 602 So.2d at 872 .

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)).

2023Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Ambrose v. State, 254 So. 3d 77, 146 (¶236) (Miss. 2018)). ¶20.

2021A criminal defendant also “has a right to assert alternative theories of defense, even inconsistent alternative theories.” Reddix v. State, 731 So. 2d 591, 593 (¶9) (Miss. 1999).

2021“While a defendant is entitled to jury instructions that present his theory of the case, an instruction may be improper if it incorrectly states the law, is redundant, or lacks foundation in the evidence presented.” Cooper v. State, 230 So. 3d 1071, 1077 (¶19) (Miss.

2020However, “[t]he court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions or is without foundation in the evidence.” Davis v. State, 18 So. 3d 842, 847 (¶15) (Miss. 2009) (quoting Phillipson v. State, 943 So. 2d 670, 671 (¶6) (Miss. 2006)). 2 Cruz also argues that the jury should have been instructed on heat-of-passion manslaughter.

2020However, “[t]he court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions or is without foundation in the evidence.” Davis v. State, 18 So. 3d 842, 847 (¶15) (Miss. 2009) (quoting Phillipson v. State, 943 So. 2d 670, 671 (¶6) (Miss. 2006)). 2 Cruz also argues that the jury should have been instructed on heat-of-passion manslaughter.

2012We have provided that “[a] criminal defendant has a right to assert alternative theories of defense, even inconsistent alternative theories ” and that “[i]n homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuses that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely, and the trial court’s failure to do so is error requiring reversal of a judgment of conviction.” Brown v. State, 39 So.3d 890, 899 (Miss. 2010) (emphasis added) (citation omitted); Maye v. State, 49 So.3d 1124, 1129 (Miss. 2010) (emphasis added) (ci

2000"The issue of justifiable self-defense presents a question of the weight and credibility of the evidence rather than sufficiency and is to be decided by the jury." Meshell v. State, 506 So.2d 989, 991-92 (Miss.1987). ¶ 10.