Title: People v. Green

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

495 P.2d 549 (1972) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest G. W. GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 24873. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. April 3, 1972. *550 Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard G. McManus, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee. Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Randolph M. Karsh, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant. DAY, Justice. Appellant, Green, was charged with and convicted by a jury of criminal nonsupport of his three minor children. C.R.S.1963, 43-1-1. He seeks reversal of this judgment. We affirm. The only ground asserted by appellant as error involves the propriety of instruction number 5, defining "willfully" as used in the statute defining the offense. Appellant did not object to the instruction when tendered, did not tender a "proper" instruction, and did not mention the asserted error in his motion for new trial. Colo.R.Crim.P. 30, 37(b). Appellant, however, asks us to notice the assignment as plain error under Colo.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Instruction number 5 defines "willfully" as used in instructions numbered 3 and 4 as "intentionally and not accidentally." While appellant does not indicate in his brief the "proper" definition of the term, he does rely on Gallegos v. People, 161 Colo. 158, 420 P.2d 409 (1966), a felony nonsupport case, wherein we noted that the term had been defined in State v. Chambers, 238 N.C. 373, 78 S.E.2d 209 (1953), as "intentionally done `without just cause, excuse or justification" after notice and request for support." It apparently is appellant's position that instruction number 5 was incomplete in that it did not contain language of excuse or justification. Because the instructions as a whole must be read and considered by the jury, if there is in fact a deficiency in instruction number 5, it is cured by instructions numbered 3 and 4. Instruction number 3 provides in pertinent part: Instruction number 4 provides in pertinent part: Instruction number 4 incorporates by reference instruction number 3. As was said in Gallegos v. People, supra: We hold the definition of the term given in instruction number 5 is perfectly proper in the context of instructions 3 and 4. Judgment is affirmed.