Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

418 So. 2d 832

Docket No. 53770.

Jones v. State

Jerry JONES v. STATE of Mississippi.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 1982.

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1982-08-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Although a majority of the Court is of the opinion that the instruction does correctly state the law, several other Judges are of the opinion that it is too long, redundant and confusing. In the future, it might be wise for district attorneys to substitute the following instruction for the one quoted above: The court instructs the jury that to make a killing justifiable on the grounds of self-defense, the danger to the defendant must be either actual, present and urgent, or the defendant must have reasonable grounds to apprehend a design on the part of the victim to kill him or to do him some great bodily harm, and in addition to this he must have reasonable grounds to apprehend that there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished. It is for the jury to determine the reasonableness of the ground upon which the defendant acts.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Evans v. State, Lenoir v. State

“Although the above instruction is not perfectly written, we find appellant’s argument lacks merit as similar instructions have been approved by this Court in many cases including: Bright v. State, 349 So.2d 503 (Miss.1977); Turner v. State, 220 So.2d 295 (Miss.1969); Coleman v. State, 22 So.2d 410 (Miss. (1945); Bailey v. State, 174 Miss. 453 , 165 So. 122 (1936); Callas v. State, 151 Miss. 617 , 118 So. 447 (1928). The inclusion of the adjective “apparent” preceding the term imminent danger may be desirable but its omission does not constitute reversible error in this case.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lenoir v. State

Relies on Callas v. State · Waller v. Rapides Grocery Co. · Bailey v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-08-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2001

6 state decisions

30198219902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Robert L. Lancaster, Columbus, for appellant.

¶2Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Amy D. Whitten, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

¶3Before WALKER, P.J., and BROOM and ROY NOBLE LEE, JJ.

¶4WALKER, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

¶5This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Mississippi, wherein the appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to serve a term of twelve years with the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Aggrieved with this judgment and sentence, he appeals. We affirm.

¶6*833 Appellant first assigns as error the lower court's granting of State's Instruction 4 which reads as follows:

The Court instructs the Jury that to make an assault justifiable on the grounds of self defense, the danger to the defendant must be either actual, present and urgent, or the defendant must have reasonable grounds to apprehend a design on the part of the victim to kill, or to do him some great bodily harm, and in addition to this, that there was imminent danger of such design being accomplished; and, hence, mere fear, apprehension or belief, however sincerely entertained by one person that another designs to take his life or to do him some great bodily harm, will not justify the former making an assault on the latter party. A party may have an apprehension that his life is in danger and believe the grounds of his apprehension just and reasonable, and yet he acts at his peril. He is not the final judge; the Jury may determine the reasonableness of the grounds upon which he acted.

¶7He contends this instruction was erroneously granted as it is misleading and prejudicial in that, by its language, it suppresses his right to act upon reasonable appearances. He further argues the instruction adds to the requirement of either real or apparent danger, the additional element of imminent danger without the qualification that the imminency may be also apparent only.

¶8Although the above instruction is not perfectly written, we find appellant's argument lacks merit as similar instructions have been approved by this Court in many cases including: Bright v. State, 349 So.2d 503 (Miss. 1977); Turner v. State, 220 So.2d 295 (Miss. 1969); Coleman v. State, 22 So.2d 410 (Miss. 1945); Bailey v. State, 174 Miss. 453, 165 So. 122 (1936); Callas v. State, 151 Miss. 617, 118 So. 447 (1928).

¶9The inclusion of the adjective "apparent" preceding the term imminent danger may be desirable but its omission does not constitute reversible error in this case.

¶10The remaining assignment of error is without merit, as we are of the opinion that when all granted instructions are read together, the jury was properly instructed. This case is, therefore, affirmed.

¶11AFFIRMED.

¶12PATTERSON, C.J., SUGG, P.J., and BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, JJ., concur.

/418/so2d/832 · .json · Public domain