Carlisle argues that the evidence presented by the State was not sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict. He contends that this was a horrible accident and no criminal ramifications should come of it. Carlisle directs this Court to Edwards v. State, 755 So.2d 443 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999), as authority. The facts of Edwards are similar in that a family outing turned tragic in the death of a child. However, Edwards is distinguishable from this case.
What some judges might deem culpable negligence by a parent might be insufficiently egregious to others. See, e.g., Edwards v. State, 755 So.2d 443 (Miss. App. 1999) (reversing, over a dissent, the culpable negligence manslaughter conviction of parents in the death of their four-year-old who drowned during [a] camping trip due to insufficient evidence of culpable negligence). For this reason, we have reviewed the record closely to determine whether the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to believe Ramos was culpably negligent under the law.
¶ 15. Starns relies on Edwards v. State, 755 So.2d 443 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999), to support her contention that the State must put forth a coherent theory and prove through evidence that Starns committed an act to cause Angela to asphyxiate. In Edwards, the parents of a four year old child were charged with culpable negligence manslaughter after the child drowned while on a camping excursion with his parents.
Rather, "[i]t shall be sufficient, in an indictment for manslaughter, to charge that the defendant did feloniously kill and slay the deceased ...." Id. ; see alsoEdwards v. State , 755 So. 2d 443, 445-46 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) ("[T]he indictment in this case was uninformative as to what action or inaction on the part of these defendants constituted the culpable negligence that proximately caused [the victim's] death. ... [H]owever, the statute regarding homicide indictments specifically permits a charge to be brought in this manner."). ¶74.
What some judges might deem culpable negligence by a parent might be insufficiently egregious to others. See, e.g., Edwards v. State, 755 So.2d 443 (Miss.App.1999) (reversing, over a dissent, the culpablenegligence manslaughter conviction of parents in the death of their four-year-old who drowned during camping trip due to insufficient evidence of culpable negligence). For this reason, we have reviewed the record closely to determine whether the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to believe Ramos was culpably negligent under the law.
¶ 6. The purpose of jury instructions in a criminal case is to inform the jury of the critical facts and applicable law on which the issue of guilt may be resolved. Edwards v. State, 755 So.2d 443, 446 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (citing Lamar v. State, 64 Miss. 428, 1 So. 354, 355 (1887)). "The obligation of the trial court is to see that the jury is fully instructed on the applicable law. It is not to give every instruction requested by either party merely because the instruction is arguably a correct statement of some abstract legal principle."
¶ 44. Bougon directs this Court to Edwards v. State, 755 So.2d 443 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). In Edwards, a child drowned while on a camping trip with his family.
Though the trial court is entitled to rely upon counsel for the State and the defense to present proposed instructions that accurately inform the jury as to what facts are being submitted to it for resolution and what result the law requires depending upon how the jury resolves those critical facts, ultimately the responsibility for properly instructing the jury lies with the trial court.Edwards v. State, 755 So.2d 443, 447 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). ¶ 14.