 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Jahner3/5/2003
ror for the trial court's procedure in responding to the jury's request.
III.
[ ] Jahner argues the trial court committed reversible error by denying the State's request, upon which Jahner relied, to instruct the jury on the definition of reasonable doubt. Alternatively, Jahner argues the trial court committed obvious error by failing to include the definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the jury instructions.
[ ] N.D.R.Crim.P. 30 describes the procedure for requesting and objecting to jury instructions. Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(c), counsel must designate the jury instructions that are objectionable and only those instructions so designated are deemed excepted by counsel. State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, 9, 575 N.W.2d 658. "`An attorney's failure to object at trial to instructions, when given the opportunity, operates as a waiver of the right to complain on appeal of instructions that either were or were not given.'" Id. at 10 (quoting State v. Johnson, 379 N.W.2d 291, 292 (N.D. 1986)). Because Jahner's attorney did not object at trial to the court's refusal to instruct the jury on the definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt when he was given the opportunity, we conclude Jahner waived his right to complain on appeal about the jury instructions. Thus, our inquiry is limited to determining if the alleged error constitutes obvious error affecting the substantial rights of the defendant. State v. Murphy, 527 N.W.2d 254, 255 (N.D. 1995).
[ ] "Jury instructions must correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law and must not mislead or confuse the jury." Olander, 1998 ND 50, 18, 575 N.W.2d 658. We review jury instructions as a whole and consider whether they correctly advise the jury on the law. Id. The United States Supreme Court has stated " he beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a requirement of due process, but the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of course." Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5 (1994). " o long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof." Id. (citations omitted).
[ ] "This court has long recognized the difficulty in defining reasonable doubt and has neither required nor prohibited" a definition on reasonable doubt. State v. Schneider, 550 N.W.2d 405, 408 (N.D. 1996). We have concluded, however, reversible error results if a court gives a jury instruction on reasonable doubt and the language in the instruction is contrary to the law. State v. Azure, 525 N.W.2d 654, 659 (N.D. 1994).
[ ] In this case, the jury was instructed the burden of proof rests on the State, and the State satisfies its burden only if the evidence proves to the jury's satisfaction the essential elements of each offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude the trial court's instructions, as a whole, correctly and adequately advised the jury of the law. The trial court was not required to and did not err when it refused to instruct the jury on the definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
IV.
[ ] Jahner argues the conviction for reckless endangerment should be reversed and the count dismissed from the indictment because the jury verdict is repugnant. Jahner asserts that since the jury acquitted him on the charge of manslaughter, it rejected the notion he was reckless; therefore, the verdict finding him guilty of reckless endangerment is inconsistent and repugnant.
[ ] Jahner argues the jury
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|