Anderson testified that after he was struck in the face, he attempted to see who had hit him but was immediately kicked while he tried to protect himself on the floor. He testified that he could only see a person with darker skin and conceded that he could not further identify the person who assaulted him. The supreme court has stated that reviewing courts must recognize that the jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and assume that, after due consideration, the jurors believed the state s witnesses. Given the evidence and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from it, the jury could reasonably conclude that Uribe committed the assault. Uribe next contends that the district court erred in failing to define assault in its jury instruction on third-degree assault.
District courts possess considerable latitude in selecting the language of jury instructions.
Although the specific language of jury instructions may vary from case to case, instructions may not materially misstate the law. Jury instructions are reviewed to determine whether, taken as a whole, they fairly and accurately explain the law. Therefore, an error in one part of the jury instructions may be cured by other instructions. Normally, failure to object to a jury instruction at trial waives consideration of the jury instruction on appeal. Although Uribe did not object at trial, this court may address a claim in the interests of justice if it alleges a fundamental error of law.