Opinion ID: 2112402
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The trial court correctly denied Johnston's proposed theory of defense instructions.

Text: Johnston argues that the trial court erred in failing to give his theory of defense jury instructions where those instructions were properly requested, correct statements of the law, and supported by evidence. Specifically, Johnston wanted instructions regarding (1) ignorance or mistake of fact and (2) intent as it relates to commission of grand theft and the defrauding of another by altering a brand. Jury instructions are to be considered as a whole, and if the instructions when so read correctly state the law and inform the jury, they are sufficient. State v. Huber, 356 N.W.2d 468 (S.D.1984). Also, it is well settled in South Dakota that it is not error for a trial court to refuse to amplify instructions given which substantially cover the principle embodied in the requested instructions. State v. Gillespie, 445 N.W.2d 661, 664 (S.D.1989); State v. Weisenstein, 367 N.W.2d 201, 206 (S.D.1985). In the present case, the jury instructions as a whole, fairly presented the issue to be tried and sufficiently protected Johnston's rights. We cannot fault the trial court for, indeed, it instructed the jury on the elements of the crimes of grand theft and brand alteration. Additionally, it instructed the jury as to the requisite intent for each crime. Further, we approve of a holding in the New Mexico Court of Appeals which determined that whenever an intent instruction involving the defendant's mental state is given, the mistake of fact concept is automatically included and does not merit a separate instruction. State v. Griscom, 101 N.M. 377, 683 P.2d 59 (N.M.App. 1984). We therefore hold that the instructions given adequately covered any mistake of fact claim.