 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Copeland5/11/2005
75, 277-78, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2080-81 (1993).
"The proper function of a special instruction is to supply an omission or correct a mistake made in the general charge, to present a material question not treated in the general charge, or to limit, extend, eliminate, or more accurately define a proposition already submitted to the jury." State v. Cozart, 54 S.W.3d 242, 245 (Tenn. 2001). "A trial court should give a requested instruction if it is supported by the evidence, embodies a party's theory, and is a correct statement of the law." State v. Phipps, 883 S.W.2d 138, 150 n.20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Denial of a special request is error only if the trial court's charge does not fully and fairly state the applicable law. Cozart, 54 S.W.3d at 245; State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431, 447 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). However, Rule 30, Tenn. R. Crim. P., provides that special requests for jury instructions be filed in writing. A trial court will not be placed in error when a requested special instruction was not presented in writing. State v. Mackay, 638 S.W.2d 830, 836 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982).
The record reflects that at the conclusion of proof at the trial, the defendant's attorney requested a special jury instruction on the inoperability of the defendant's car as it related to the issue of whether he had "physical control" of the car at the time he was arrested. The trial court denied his request. At the hearing on the defendant's motion for new trial, the defendant's attorney argued that the trial court erred by refusing to give a jury instruction that a "completely" inoperable automobile would be a defense to the charge that the defendant had physical control of the car. Although we believe that a properly worded jury instruction regarding a completely inoperable vehicle may have been proper in this case, no clear instruction was presented by the defendant. A written request was never submitted to the trial court at the conclusion of trial, nor has the defendant set forth a proposed jury instruction in his brief to this court. It is also unclear from our review of the record of the trial and the hearing on the motion for new trial what the proposed instruction would have been. Because a trial court will not be placed in error when a requested special instruction was not presented in writing, and no inaccuracy exists in the charge given by the trial court, the defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.
Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|