 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clark v. State6/7/2005
would make the assault apparently necessary to self-preservation or to escape great bodily harm.
This instruction included each element of self-defense. The instruction also provided that it was the responsibility of the jury to determine whether Clark was justified in using the knife to defend himself.
. We have reviewed instruction D-9, requested by Clark and refused by the trial court, and find it to be repetitious of instruction S-3. The trial court is not required to instruct a jury over and over on a principle of law even though some variations are used in different instructions. Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297, 302 (Miss.1983). It is well-settled that all jury instructions are to be read together and if the jury is fully and fairly instructed by other instructions the refusal of any similar instruction does not constitute reversible error. Rester v. Lott, 566 So. 2d 1266, 1269 (Miss. 1990). Having reviewed the instructions of the trial court to the jury, we find that they accurately and sufficiently guided the jury in their deliberations. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH WEAPON AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HINDS COUNTY.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
|