 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beckham v. State3/23/1999
the court. Individual jurors may be examined only when proper to inquire as to answers given or for other good cause allowed by the court. No hypothetical questions requiring any juror to pledge a particular verdict will be asked. Attorneys will not offer an opinion on the law. The court may set a reasonable time limit for voir dire."
In the case sub judice, both the prosecuting attorney and Beckham's counsel were given fifteen minutes for voir dire. Further, Beckham's counsel was granted two extensions beyond this fifteen minutes. We cannot find any prejudice suffered by Beckham flowing from the trial court's fifteen minute limitation for voir dire of the jury venire. Accordingly, this designation of error is not well taken and is overruled.
Disallowance of Proposed Jury Instruction D-12
. As his final allegation of error, Beckham maintains that the trial court committed error in denying his requested jury instruction D-12. We disagree. The proposed instruction read as follows:
The Court instructs the jury that to determine whether the defendant was criminally negligent in operating his motor vehicle, you must find that the State has proven each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
"1) That the defendant's actions at or before the accident scene created a substantial, unjustified risk that a death would occur;
2) that the defendant failed to perceive that risk;
3) that a reasonable man in the same circumstances as the defendant would have known that he was creating a substantial, unjustified risk that a death would occur; and,
4) that the defendant's failure to perceive that risk was a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person under the same circumstances.
If the State fails to prove one or more of the above elements beyond every reasonable doubt, it is your sworn duty to find the defendant, Randy Beckham, not guilty." (emphasis in original)
The standard of review applicable to jury instructions in Mississippi is well-established. When considering a challenge to a jury instruction on appeal, we do not review jury instructions in isolation; rather, we read them as a whole to determine if the jury was properly instructed. Burton By Bradford v. Barnett, 615 So. 2d 580, 583 (Miss. 1993); Taylor v. State, 597 So. 2d 192, 195 (Miss. 1992); Payne v. Rain Forest Nurseries, Inc., 540 So. 2d 35, 40 (Miss. 1989); Byrd v. F-S Prestress, Inc., 464 So. 2d 63, 66 (Miss. 1985). If all instructions taken as a whole fairly, but not necessarily perfectly, announce the applicable rules of law, no error results.
. After reviewing all of the instructions given by the trial court, we are satisfied that those instructions provided the jury with the applicable law with regard to negligent manslaughter. Instruction S-2a, Instruction S-3, and Instruction D-11 combined to provide the substantive points contained in Instruction D-12. Accordingly, as Instruction D-12 would have been cumulative, the trial court did not err by refusing to grant the same.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SIMPSON COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF ONE COUNT OF NEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED WITH SENTENCE TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO SENTENCE PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE TAXED AGAINST APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, COLEMAN, DIAZ, IRVING, LEE, AND THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
|