Title: State v. Jeffries
Citation: 313 N.W.2d 508
Docket Number: 65503
State: Iowa
Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court
Date: December 23, 1981

313 N.W.2d 508 (1981) STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. James J. JEFFRIES, Appellant. No. 65503. Supreme Court of Iowa. December 23, 1981. Chris Odell, State Appellate Defender's Office, Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Thomas N. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James Smith, Polk County Atty., Des Moines, for appellee. Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and McCORMICK, McGIVERIN, LARSON, and SCHULTZ, JJ. REYNOLDSON, Chief Justice. Defendant appeals from his conviction of murder in the first degree by presenting two issues: (1) whether jury instruction number 28 was an unconstitutional trial court comment on the evidence, and (2) whether jury instruction number 12, which allowed the jury to infer malice from a *509 wrongful assault with a deadly weapon, was unconstitutional because it shifted the burden of proof to defendant. We affirm. I. Instruction 28, relating to the defense of justification, was submitted in the following form: (Emphasis added.) This instruction closely follows the Iowa State Bar Association's Uniform Jury Instruction Number 418. II Iowa Uniform Jury Instructions No. 418 (1978). The jury was also given the following instruction, number 20: (Emphasis added.) This instruction is a combination of defendant's requested instructions 7 and 8. The Iowa State Bar Association's model instructions were again used as patterns. See II Iowa Uniform Jury Instructions Nos. 401, 402 (1978). For the purposes of our analysis we will assume error was preserved on this issue because the authorities the State relies on do not support its waiver theory. Contra, State v. Templeton, 258 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Iowa 1977); State v. Hraha, 193 N.W.2d 484, 486 (Iowa 1972). We disapprove Uniform Instructions reluctantly. State v. Whiteside, 272 N.W.2d 468, 471 (Iowa 1978). We must consider jury instructions as a set. State v. Lindsey, 302 N.W.2d 98, 102 (Iowa 1981); State v. Savage, 288 N.W.2d 502, 508 (Iowa 1980). Justification as a defense is twopronged: an admission that a proscribed act was done, and the establishment of an exculpatory excuse that takes the act out of the criminal law. See § 704.3, The Code 1979; W. LaFave &amp; A. Scott, Criminal Law 6 (1972); W. Prosser, Law of Torts §§ 16, 19, 20 (4th ed. 1971); Wharton's Criminal Law §§ 51, 88 (14th ed. C. Torcia 1978). Therefore, these instructions accurately state defendant's legal theory and are not impermissible judicial comments on the evidence. See State v. Upton, 167 N.W.2d 625, 630 (Iowa 1969). II. Instruction 12 provided: (Emphasis added.) We have rejected constitutional challenges to this instruction several times. Henderson v. Scurr, 313 N.W.2d 522, 526 (Iowa 1981); Whiteside, *510 272 N.W.2d at 472; State v. Pepples, 250 N.W.2d 390, 395 (Iowa 1977); State v. Lass, 228 N.W.2d 758, 766-67 (Iowa 1975). We believe the instructions, considered together, make it clear defendant had no burden of proof. However, the italicized language in instruction 12 is surplusage and in the future should not be included in similar instructions. Counsel for defendant is reminded that rule 14(e), Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure, which requires citation of specific pages within the authorities relied on in briefs to this court, is mandatory. AFFIRMED.