Hye v. State
Decision Date | 05 February 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 2010–CT–01780–SCT.,2010–CT–01780–SCT. |
Citation | Hye v. State, 162 So.3d 750 (Miss. 2015) |
Parties | Terry HYE, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Graham Patrick Carner, attorney for appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by Lisa L. Blount, attorney for appellee.
EN BANC.
PIERCE, Justice, for the Court:
¶ 1.Following his capital-murder conviction in Jackson County, Terry Hye Jr. received a life sentence without the possibility of parole.The Court of Appeals affirmed Hye's conviction but vacated and remanded his sentence as unconstitutional, pursuant to the intervening decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama,––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407(2012)( ).Hye was sixteen years old at the time of the crime.Hye v. State,2013 WL 2303518, at *5, 162 So.3d 818, 824–25.Aggrieved by the Court of Appeals' affirmance of his conviction, Hye filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court, arguing that the trial court violated his right to a fair trial by denying him an accessory-after-the-fact instruction and an accomplice instruction.Hye also claimed that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the underlying felony of armed robbery, which resulted in a constructive amendment of the indictment.We granted Hye's petition, and, pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 17(h), address only the question of whether the trial court erred by denying Hye an accessory-after-the-fact instruction.
¶ 2.We agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court properly denied Hye's request for an accessory-after-fact instruction because there was no evidentiary basis for it.We also find, after much consideration on the matter, that a criminal defendant no longer has the unilateral right under Mississippi law to insist upon an instruction for lesser-related offenses which are not necessarily included in the charged offense(s), i.e., so-called lesser-nonincluded-offense instructions.And we overrule Griffin v. State,533 So.2d 444(Miss.1988), and its progeny, to the extent they hold otherwise.
Hye,2013 WL 2303518, at **2–4, 162 So.3d at 821–24.
¶ 3.This Court granted Hye's Petition for Writ of Certiorari by order entered on January 9, 2014.On June 12, 2014, this Court ordered supplemental briefing regarding “[w]hether Griffin v. State,533 So.2d 444(Miss.1988), and its progeny, authorizing ‘lesser non-included’ offense instructions[,] should be overruled.”
¶ 4.Having reviewed the supplemental briefing regarding the question outlined in the June 12, 2014, order from this Court, we find that Mississippi's practice of instructing the jury on lesser nonincluded crimes is “fundamentally unsound.”We, therefore, overrule Griffin and its progeny.Additional facts, as necessary, will be related in our discussion.
¶ 5.As mentioned, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court properly denied Hye's request for an accessory-after-the-fact instruction.The trial court may refuse a proffered jury instruction if the instruction is without a foundation in the evidence.Murphy v. State,566 So.2d 1201, 1206(Miss.1990)(citingU.S. v. Robinson,700 F.2d 205, 211(5th Cir.1983) ).As illustrated by the record, Hye's theory of the case was that he did nothing wrong the evening of October 23, 2008, other than illegally purchase cigarettes at the Conoco gas station, and not report the shooting to the police.No evidence was presented to Hye's jury that would have allowed it to consider whether Hye was guilty as an accessory after the fact, as prescribed by Mississippi Code Section 97–1–5(1)(Rev.2014).2
¶ 6.Hye's requested instruction in this instance is known as a lesser-nonincluded-offense instruction—typically referred to as such because it instructs the jury on an offense whose essential elements are not included (or a subset) of the offense(s) charged in the indictment.This type instruction lies in contrast with what is known as a lesser-included-offense instruction—referred to as such because all of its essential elements are also essential elements of the greater offense charged.
¶ 7.Like most jurisdictions, Mississippi has long recognized that an offense alleged in the indictment (or accusatory pleading) may necessarily include one or more lesser offenses.Under Mississippi Code Section 99–19–5, the jury may convict the defendant of an “inferior offense, or other offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in the offense with which he is charged in the indictment ....”3This Court repeatedly has interpreted Section 99–19–5(and its predecessors) to “apply only to an inferior offense ‘necessarily included within the more serious offense.’ ”SeeHailey v. State,537 So.2d 411, 414(Miss.1988)citingSanders v. State,479 So.2d 1097, 1105(Miss.1985);Gillum v. State,468 So.2d 856, 861(Miss.1985);Cannaday v. State,455 So.2d 713, 725(Miss.1984);Biles v. State,338 So.2d 1004(Miss.1976);Gray v. State,220 Miss. 220, 70 So.2d 524(1954);Boggan v. State,176 Miss. 655, 170 So. 282(1936);Brown v. State,103 Miss. 664, 60 So. 727(1913);Bedell v. State,50 Miss. 492(1874).
¶ 8.A lesser offense is necessarily included in the greater offense if the elements of the greater offense include all the elements of the lesser offense, such that the greater cannot be committed without also committing the lesser.SeePorter v. State,616 So.2d 899, 909–10(Miss.1993)(Hawkins, J., specially concurring)().As we explained in Hailey,537 So.2d at 416, “if under the facts alleged in the indictment a lesser offense is necessarily included, then a conviction of the lesser offense may be proper[; but][t]he indictment must sufficiently allege...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Eubanks v. State
...non-included offense instructions" was overruled in 2015 by Hye v. State , 162 So. 3d 750, 755 (Miss. 2015). In Hye , the Court held that " Griffin and progeny authorizing lesser-nonincluded-offense instructions are hereby overruled."
Id. at 764.¶65. Here, the evidence supports a lesser-included offense instruction of simple assault domestic violence. The jury, in weighing the evidence presented, could have found that Eubanks's actions fell short of strangulation"was ... entitled to have the jury instructed on the lesser offense of simple assault." Id. at 447-48 (emphasis added). Griffin ’s "journey into non-included offense instructions" was overruled in 2015 by Hye v. State , 162 So. 3d 750, 755 (Miss. 2015). In Hye , the Court held that " Griffin and progeny authorizing lesser-nonincluded-offense instructions are hereby overruled." Id. at 764.¶65. Here, the evidence supports a lesser-includedhave the jury instructed on the lesser offense of simple assault." Id. at 447-48 (emphasis added). Griffin ’s "journey into non-included offense instructions" was overruled in 2015 by Hye v. State , 162 So. 3d 750, 755 (Miss. 2015). In Hye, the Court held that " Griffin and progeny authorizing lesser-nonincluded-offense instructions are hereby overruled." Id. at 764.¶65. Here, the evidence supports a lesser-included offense instruction... -
Nevels v. State
...hypothesis’ language suggests to the jury that the State is held to a distinct and higher burden of proof in cases lacking a confession from the defendant or eyewitness testimony to the gravamen of the offense").2 In 2015, in
Hye v. State , 162 So. 3d 750, 755 (Miss. 2015), citing the necessity "to avoid the perpetuation of pernicious error[,]" this Court also recently abolished the unsound practice of giving lesser-non-included offense instructions, after weighing years of Mississippidefendants to have the juries they faced instructed on lesser-related offenses for which an evidentiary basis exists. But today, the majority discards that longstanding precedent by overruling Griffin v. State , 533 So. 2d 444 (Miss. 1988), and its progeny. Because I would hold that the rule articulated in Griffin is logical, fair, and often valuable in the quest for justice, and additionally, because Hyepresented sufficient evidence to support an accessory-after-the-factlesser-related offenses for which an evidentiary basis exists. But today, the majority discards that longstanding precedent by overruling Griffin v. State , 533 So. 2d 444 (Miss. 1988), and its progeny. Because I would hold that the rule articulated in Griffin is logical, fair, and often valuable in the quest for justice, and additionally, because Hye presented sufficient evidence to support an accessory-after-the-fact instruction, I respectfully dissent. Hye , 162 So.... -
Taylor v. State
...755 (Miss. 2015) (quoting Stone v. Reichman-Crosby Co. , 43 So. 2d 184, 190 (Miss. 1949) ). In Hye , this court recently abolished the practice of granting criminal defendants "lesser-non-included-offense" jury instructions.
Id. at 753. But that change came about only after this Court weighed years of opinions from Mississippi appellate judges highlighting the variety of problems and criticisms of that particular instruction. ¶30. After considering a far greaterdecisis remains "where the previous rule of law would perpetuate error and wrong would result if the decision were followed." Payton , 266 So. 3d at 638 (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Hye v. State , 162 So. 3d 750, 755 (Miss. 2015)). Part II of the majority, rather than following our established law and detailing the errors and wrongs meriting this change in precedent, summarily declares pre-arming instructions illicit. But the elements neededstare decisis, we have "recognized that the doctrine is subordinate to legal reason and justice, and courts ‘will depart therefrom when such departure is necessary to avoid the perpetuation of pernicious error.’ " Hye v. State , 162 So. 3d 750, 755 (Miss. 2015)(quoting Stone v. Reichman-Crosby Co. , 43 So. 2d 184, 190 (Miss. 1949) ). In Hye , this court recently abolished the practice of granting criminal defendants "lesser-non-included-offense" jury instructions.... -
Payton v. State
...Gollott . Because of the increased recognition of crime victims in both our Constitution and statutory law, we find that departure from the abatement ab initio doctrine is necessary to avoid the perpetuation of pernicious error.
Hye , 162 So.3d at 755. The abatement ab initio doctrine tramples upon victims' rights by denying victims "fairness, respect and dignity." Korsen , 111 P.3d at 135. Moreover, we find that the policies undergirding stare decisis—consistency and"[F]undamental jurisprudential policy requires that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current court." Hye v. State , 162 So.3d 750, 755 (Miss. 2015). This policy "is based on the assumption that consistency and definiteness in the law are the major objectives of the legal system." Id. (citing Laurel Daily Leader, Inc. v. James , 224 Miss. 654, 681, 80 So.2d 770, 780-81 (1955)decided differently by the current court." Hye v. State , 162 So.3d 750, 755 (Miss. 2015). This policy "is based on the assumption that consistency and definiteness in the law are the major objectives of the legal system." Id.(citing Laurel Daily Leader, Inc. v. James , 224 Miss. 654, 681, 80 So.2d 770, 780-81 (1955) (Gillespie, J., special opinion) ). However, "stare decisis is not an inexorable command." Bester v. State , 188 So.3d 526, 529 (Miss. 2016)...